DISCOURSE 


O  N 


PSALMODY. 


DELIVERED  AT  NEWBURGE, 


BEFORE     TI4E 


PRESBYTERY    OF    HUDSON, 


SEPTEMBER,   i3oi, 


r 

\ 


By  JGNATHAr^REEMAN,    A.  M<  V.  V.  >:, 


N  E  W  B  u  ?.  c  ir  ■ 

PRINTED    3Y  "DENNIS    COLE?, 

rScn, 


^■■l    ■.■««■  lit  VMUm\im>**    '!«"   *    J.J <<%l  -Pig; 


A    DISCOURSE,    &c, 


Qol.  ill.  1 6,  17.  Let  the  word  of  Chrljl  dwell  in  pa  richly  in  all 
wifdom;  Teaching  and  admonifhing  on:  another  in  Pfalms  and 
Hymns  and  Spiritual  Songs,  Jinging  with  grace  in  you  r  htarts  to  the 
Lord,  yfnd  whatfoever  ye  do  in  word  or  deed,  do  all  in  the  name 
0/  the  Lord  J ef us,  giving  thanks  to  God  and  thi  Father  by  him. 


rpHE  apoftle  in  the  context,  urges  the  vigorous  exercife  of. 
JL  the  chriftian  graces.  And  in  the  pafTage  under  difcuffion, 
he  points  to  a  principal  mean  by  which  thefe  graces  may  be  rou- 
fed  into  activity.  It  is  addreffing  to  God  facred  anthems  of 
praife.  We  are  alfo  directed  to  the  word  of  Chrijl  as  the  proper 
fourcs  of  our  divine  fongs.  The  word  of  Chrijl  is  an  appropriate 
appellation  of  the  gofpel.  The  fcriptures  of  the  old  teftament, 
are,  in  a  remote  fenfe,  the  word  of  Chrijl,  becaufe  they  were  dic- 
tated by  his  fpirit,  and  becaufe  he  is  their  ultimate  object.  Buc- 
the  gofpel  is,  in  a  peculiar  fenfe,  the  word  of  Chrijl.  This  fhall 
be  made  apparent  in  the  fequel. 

That  we  may  be  amply  furnilhed  with  fongs  of  praife,  the  word 
•f  Chrijl  muft  dwell  richly  in  us.  It  muft  be  cordially  received,  af- 
fiduoufly  fearched,  and  carefully  obferved.  Our  knowledge  of  the 
gofpel  muft  be  extenfive,  and  more  than  fpeculative.  The  heart  is- 
the  principal  place  of  its  abode.  Here  it  muft  dwell  in  all  wifdom. 
To  an  ample  fund  of  experimental  acquaintance  with  the  gofpel, we 
muft  add  a  fufficient  flock  ot  wifdom, that  we  may  fuitably  improve 
the  various  occurrences  of  life.  Thus  furnilhed,  we  muft  confeien- 
tioufly  engage  in  the  delightful  and  divine  employment  of  Teach- 
ing and  admonifhing  one  another  in  pfalms  and  hymns  and  fpiriiual  fongs9 
Jinging  with  grace  in  our  hearts  to  the  Lord.  From  the  rich  indwell- 
ing of  the  word  of  Chrijl,  we  fhall  be  able  to  teach  and  admoniiii 
each  other,  to  awaken  and  inflame  our  pious  affections,  in  celebra- 
ting the  praifes  of  the  SACRED  THREE.  Nothing  will  mors 
awaken  the  whole  foul,  and  elevate  it  to  God  and  divine  things, 
than  a  holy  pfalm  well  compofed  and  well  fung.  Much  care,  how- 
ever, fhould  be  taken,  that  we  fing  not  only  with  the  graces  of 
mufic,  but  with  divine  grace  in  the  heart ;  with  attention  and  de- 
votion to  the  Lord.     And  all  our  finging,  as  well  as  every  other 


[43 

flttty,    fhould  be  performed  in  the  namt  of  the  Lord  Jefust  giving 
thanks  to  God  tnd  the  Father  by  him. 

From  thefc  general  observations  on  the  pafTige  of  fcripture  pro- 
pofed  for  difcuffion,  I  invite  your  attention  to  this  point  ;  namely, 
Singing  praifes  to  God  is  an  important  duty  obligetory  upon  chriflians, 
C7k1  thefuljecls  of  our  fongs  of  praifc  fhould  chiefly  be  derived  from  the 
gofpel. 

The  firfl  branch  of  this  pofition  is  univerfally  acknowledged  in 
ihechiiftian  church  It  is  the  laft  branch,  therefore,  which  I 
jfhall  now  illuftrate  and  eftablifh. 

I.  The  fubje&s  of  our  pfalms,  hymns,  and  fpiritual  fongs, 
fhould  chiefly  be  derived  from  the  gofpel  of  Chrift.  I  fay  chiefly 
from  the  gofpel,  becaufe  we  fhould  borrow  light  and  advantage 
from  every  part  of  the  lcriptures  th;tt  will  afford  them  ;  and  be- 
caufe I  intend  to  fliew  that  the  pfalms  of  David  fhould  not  be 
ufed  as  the  only  fyflem  of  praife  in  gcfpcl  churches: 

That  the  fubjecls  of  our  pfalms  of  praifc  fhould  chiefly  be  taLca 
from  the  gofpel  of  Chrift,  I  would  prove 

i  ft.  From  the  firft  claufe  of  my  text.  Let  the  word  of  Chrift 
dwell  in  you  richly. 

By  the  word  of  Chrift,  in  this  place,  we  are  to  underfland  the 
gofpel.  Paul  ftyles  it  '  the  word  of  the  truth  of  the  gofpel,  which 
is  come  to  you.'  fa. J  In  the  twentieth  and  third  verfc,  he  urges 
the  Coloffian  believers  '  not  to  be  moved  away  from  the  hope  of 
the  gofpel  which  ye  have  heard,  and  which  was  preached  to  every 
creature  under  heaven.'  Again  ;  he  fays  that  they  *  were  com- 
plete in  Chrift,'  (b.)  and  warns  them  not  to  adulterate  the  gofpel 
with  mixtures  taken  fro*  the  pagan  philofophy,  nor  from  the  ce- 
remonial rites  of  the  Mofaic  difpenfation,  which  had  received  its 
accomplifhment  in  Chrift  Jefus.  Hence  it  is  manifeft  that  the 
Coloffians  were  not  directed  to  the  old  teftament  in  queft  of  the 
word  of  Chrift,  but  to  the  gofpel. 

In  the  epiltle  to  the  Hebrews.,  we  read  that  *  God,  who  at  Aia- 
."■hy  times,  and  in  diverfe  manners  fpake  unto  the  fathers  bj  the 
prophets,  hath,  in  thefe  laft  days.fpokcn  unto  us  by  his  fon.'  (c.) 
But  how  did  God  fpeak  to  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  except  in 
the  fcriptures  of  the  old  teftaruent :  How  does  God  fpeak  to  us 
by  his  fon  ?  I  anfwer,  in  the  gofpel.  Here  you  fee  that  the  apof- 
tle,  in  writing  to  the  jews,  diftinguifhes  the  gofpel  from  all  the 
revelations  of  the  divine  will  in  the  old  teftament.  Surely  then, 
in  writing  to  the  Gentile  Coloffians,  he  fpraks  of  the  gofpel  under 
the  title  of  tht  word  of  Chrift. 

Pool,  perhaps,  our  beft  commentator  on  the  bible,  informs  us 
that  Grotius,  Davenant,  and  other  eminent  divines  agree,  that 

{«*')  Col.  i.  5,  6.        (b.)  Col.  ii.  io.         (*.)  Heb.  i,  i,  2. 


[    5    ] 

the  word  of  Chtift  is  the  doctrine  of  the  gofpel.     The  learned  and 
pious  bifhop  Davenant  fays,  that  the  golpel  is  called  the  word  of 
Chrift,  becaufe  it  was  revealed  and  preached  by  Chrift,  and  ipeaks 
of  Chrift.     The  learned  Doctor   Doddridge   calls   the    word  «f 
Chrijl  the  gofpel.     Hence  it  is  evident  that  by  the  word  of  Chrift 
we  mat  underftand  the  gofpel.     And  it  is  as  evident  that  the  ex- 
hortation  in  my  text,  is  tantamount  to  a  command  to  take  the  fub- 
jects  of  cur  praife  from  the  gofpel.     For  the  principal  reafon  al- 
leged, why  the  word  of  Chrift  fhould  dwell  richly  in  the  Colofliun 
believers,  was,  that  they  might  be  enabled  to  teach  and  admonifh 
one  another,  in  pfalms,  hymns,  and  fpiricua!  fongs.   If  they  were 
always  to  fing  David's  pialms,   there  could  be   no  neceffity  for 
the  word  of  ■  hrifl  to  dwell  riehly  in  them,  that  they  might  be  fur. 
niflied  with  pfalms,  hymns,  and  fpiritual  fongs.     They  fhould 
rather  have   been   urged  to  become  thoroughly  acquainted  with 
the  pfalms  of  David,  that  they  might  be  qualified  for  the  great 
work  of  praife. 

The   apofi:le  exhorted  the  Coloffians  to   Lit  the  word  of  Chr'tji 
dwell  in  them  richly;  and  then  teaches  them  how  they  fhould  apply 
it,  namely,  in  teaching  and  admovijhing  one  another  in  pfalms  and  hymns' 
and  fpiritual  fongs.     And    this   affords  a 
2d,  argument  to  the  point  before  us. 

To  teach  and  admonifh  each  other,  was  the  leading  defig* 
why  the  word  tf  Chrijl  fhould  dwell  richly  in  them.  Would  it  not 
be  ftrange  to  urge  the  Coloffians,  to  obtain  a  thorough  acquaint- 
ance with  the  gofpel,  with  a  view  to  praife  God,  and  yet,  when 
they  celebrate  his  praife,  they  muft  not  do  it  in  gofpel  f*ngs,  but 
in  thofe  of  the  old  teftament  ?  Such  an  interpretation  would  be 
wrefting  the  text  with  a  witnefs.  1  would  not  venture  upon  fuch 
a  perverfion  of  fcripture.  Themanifeft  fenfe  of  the  apoftle,  there- 
fore, is,  that  they  fhould  celebrate  the  praifes  of  God  in  pfalms 
and  hymns  and  ipii  iiual  fongs  which  arc  derived  from  the  gofpel 
of  Chrift. 

In  the  epiftle  to  theEphefians  we  find  a  parallel  to  our  tzxt.fd.J 
'  Be  not  drunk  with  wine,  wherein  is  excefs  ;  but  be  filled  with 
the  fpirit.'  And  how  was  this  fulnefs  of  the  fpirit  to  be  mani- 
fefted  and  improved  ?  By  '  fpeaking  to  one  another  in  pfalms, 
hymns,  and  fpiritual  fongs.'  And  here  there  is  enjoined  a  ftric\ 
regard  to  the  gofpel,  '  Giving  thanks  always  for  all  things  unto 
God  and  the  Father,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift.'  And 
what  are  fome  of  the  principal  things  for  which  they  would  give 
thanks  in  their  anthems  of  praife  ?  Would  they  not  blefs  God  for 
their  election  ? — their  prcdeftinaiion  to  the  adoption  of  fons  ?-.-  their 
jultification  through  the  righteoufnefs  of  Chrift,  and  their  being 

{V.)  Eph.  r.  1 8,  iy. 


f  »  p 

made  fellow-citizens  with  the  faints  ?  And  where  will  you  find 
thefe  precious  gofpel  privileges  in  the  pfalms  of  David  ?  If  it  was 
their  duty  to  fing  thofe  pfalms,  why  did  not  Paul  direct  the  Co- 
lofllans  to  them  ?  There  is  no  pfalm  of  David,  in  which  we  are 
directed  to  approach  God  in  the  duty  of  praife  and  thankfgiving, 
for  the  peculiar  blefiings  of  the  gofpel,  in  the  name  of  Jefus  Chrift. 
And,  therefore,  as  we  are  urged  to  thank  God  in  the  name  of 
Chrift  for  thefe  bleflings,  and  no  fuch  fongs  of  praife  being  found 
in  David,  the  conclufion  mud  be  evident  to  every  unprejudiced 
mind,  that  our  hymns  of  praiie  ihould  be  taken  from  the  gofpel, 
and  not  from  David. 

Shall  we  pray  and  preach  in  gofpel  language,  and  when  we  fing, 
enter  a  Jem'ifh  fynagegue,  and  ufc  the  pfalms  of  the  eld  difpen- 
fation  ?  If  I  fhoald  preach  a  fermon,and  exclude  from  it  the  name 
of  Jefus  Chrift,  and  his  righteoufnefs,  would  you  not  think  it  a 
very  defective  difcourfe  ?  If  I  fhould  pray  in  the  language  of  the 
old  tcftamcnt,  that  Chrift  might  come,  and  obey  the  law  and 
fuffer  and  atone  for  iin,  would  you  call  it  praying  ?  And  why 
fhould  we  fing  in  this  manner  ?  Shall  we  take  our  fermons  and 
prayers  from  the  gofpel,  but  all  our  fongs  of  praife  from  the  old 
teftament  ?  What  fubftantial  reafon  can  be  affigned  for  this  ?  For 
fuch  practice  no  divine  authority  can  be  alleged.  Had  God 
commanded  u»  to  fing  David's  pfalms  under  the  gofpel,  the  con- 
troverfy  on  this  fubject  had  never  arifen.  We  fhould  be  obliged 
to  obey,  even  if  we  were  unable  to  difcover  the  reafon  of  the  com- 
mandment. 

Some  of  David's  pfalms  are  prophecies  of  the  then  coming 
Meffiah.  And  when  we  ufe  them  in  finging,  do  we  not  place 
ourfelves  in  a  Jewifh  fynagogue,  and  look  for  Chrift  yet  to  come? 
Examine  this  in  every  view,  and  if  it  is  not  reducing  christians 
to  a  ftate  of  Judaifm,  which  the  gofpel  condemns^  I  cannot  un- 
tlerftand  plain  Englifh.  When  we  have  been  meditating  upon 
the  crofs  of  Chrift,  and  redemption  through  hit  blood,  till  our 
•affections  are  kindled  into  a  devout  flame,  mall  we  exprefs  thefe 
pious  affections  in  Jewifh  fongs  of  praife? — in  the  types  and  fha- 
dows  of  the  Jewifh  fyftcm?  Shall  we  confine  our  attention  entire- 
ly to  the  prediction,  when  its  accomplishment  is  prefented  to  our 
view  ?  Shall  we  light  up  a  candle  in  the  full  blaze  of  the  meridian 
fun? 

When  we  behold  the  promifed  Meffiah  already  come;  whea 
we  realize  his  fufferings,  death,  refuuection,  and  afcention  int© 
heaven  as  our  interceflor;  fhall  we  praife  God  for  thefe  glorious 
events  in  the  language  of  prediction?  How  ftrange,  and  unac- 
countable is  fuch  conduct  in  profefling  Christians !  Let  none 
prciume  to  mention  the  precious  name  of  Chrift  in  a  fermon,  or 
prayer,  who  will  exclude  it  fr«m  his  fongs  of  praife.     If  it  had 


t    7    1 

keen  the  apoftle's  defignto  direct  us  to  David's  pfalms,  vvculd  he 
»ot  have  given  us  exprefs  information  to  that  purpofe  ?  There  is 
not  the leaft  intimation  of  this  in  our  text,  nor  any  of  thofepaf- 
fages,  where  we  are  directed  to  ?ppioach  God  in  fongs  of  praife. 
That  we  are  not  directed  to  David  is  farther  evident  from  the  di- 
verfity  of  phiafe  which  the  apoftle  ufes  ;  pfalms,  hymns,  and  fpi- 
ritual fongs.  We  have  no  hint  in  fcripture  that  David's  pfalms 
were  ever  defignated  by  thefe  titles.  ri  hey  are  frequently  quoted 
in  the  new  teftament,  but  always  under  the  title  of  pfalms,  *  Da- 
vid hiinfelf  faith  in  the  book  of p/alms.'  (e.)  *  It  is  written  in  the 
fecond  pfaltn  ,thou  art  my  fon — he  faith  alfo  in  another  pfalm,  thou 
fhalt  not  fuffer  thine  Holy  One  to  fee  corruption.'  {/.)  *  Again, 
it  is  written  in  the  book  of pfalms.'  (g.) 

Thus  you  fee,  when  new  teftament  writeri  quote  the  book  of 
pfalms,  it  is  under  the  exprefs  title  of  pfalms.  They  are  no  where 
called  hyT.ns  and  fpiritual  fongs.  If,  therefore,  Paul  defigned 
to  (hew  that  we  fhould  fmg  thofe  pfalms  exclufivcly,  why  does 
he  urge  us  to  ufe,  befidcs  them,  hymns  and  fpiritual  fongs  ?  Since 
the  pfalms  of  David  are  never  diftinguifhed  by  the  title  of  hymns 
and  fpiritual  fongs,  it  muft  be  evident  to  every  perfon  not  infatu- 
ated with  bigotry,  that  the  apoftle  directs  us  to  fongs  of  praife  de- 
rived from  the  gofpel;  No  other  conclufion  can  fairly  be  drawn. 
But,  above  all,  does  not  the  apoftle  direct  us  to  fubje&s  of 
praife  and  gratitude  different  from  what  arc  recorded  in  the  old 
ttftament  ? — to  wonders  %vhich  had  no  exiftence  under  theMofaic 
difpeniatlon  ?  And  iliall  the  wonders  of  redeeming  love,  which 
the  gofpel  prefents  to  view,  be  dreffed  in  Jewifh  language,  when 
we  fmg  them  ?  Shall  we  celebrate  the  Redeemer's  benefits,  the 
privileges  and  gloiies  of  the  gofpel,  on  the  Jewifh  harp  and  or- 
gan ?  The  apoftle  throughout  this  epiftle  tixes  our  attention  on 
the  gofpel  which  the  old  teftament  faints  had  not  received.  And 
it  is  from  this  fourcc  that  we  muft  take  the  materials  of  our  an- 
thems of  praife,  by  which  we  are  to  teach  and  admonifti  each 
©ther.  This  conclufion  is  as  evident  as  any  doctrine  taught  in 
the  holy  fcriptuies. 

That  the   matter  of  our  pfalms,  hymns,  and  fpiritual  fongs 
(hould  be  taken  chiefly  from  the  gofpel,  receives  farther  evidence 
3dly,  from  arguments  that  may  be  drawn  from  the  old  tefta- 
ment. 

i.  Let  us  advert  to  the  practice  of  the  faints  in  tinging  praifes 
to  God  in  the  early  ages  ef  the  church. 

When  Mofes  had  conducted  the  lfraelites  through  the  Red  Sea, 
he  compofed  a  fong  to  be  fung  in  commemoration  of  their  happy 
deliverance  from  Egyptian  vaflallage.  (-6.)     This  falvation   o.f 

(e.)  Luke  xx.  42.       If.)  A.&  w,  33>  35-       U-)  Act*  u  2.9. 

1*0  E*°du*£& 


i  *  j 

IAacl  may  be  confidcred  as  a  fhadowof  the  grcat'falvation  which 
Chrift  has  procured  tor  believers.  And  (hall  the  Israelites  celehrate 
their  temporal  deliverance  in  an  anthem  of  praife  ?  And  fliaU  we, 
in  our  fpiritual  longs,  pafs  over  in  filence  our  great  felvatioo 
from  fin  and  hell,  which  was  accomplifhed  under  the  gofpel  dif- 
penfation?  If  we  fhould  hold  our  peace  upon  this  glorious  event* 
would  not  the  ftones  immediately  cry  out  and  overwhelm  us  witlt 
confufion  ?  Deborah  and  Barak,  fang  another  fong  adapted  to 
the  occafion  of  their  victory  over  their  enemies.  (/.)  l)id  time 
permit,  and  neceffity  require,  I  could  fhew  a  number  of  forgs' 
which  the  laints,  under  the  old  teitament,  fung  upon  receiving 
particular  favors  from  God.  And  fhall  we  not  imicate  their  prac« 
tice  ?  Has  not  the  Lord  done  greater  things  for  us  which  de-» 
mand  fuitable  anthems  of  praife  i  Did  not  Chrift  open  the  eyes 
of  the  blind,  caule  the  deaf  to  hear,  and  the  lame  to  wa-k  ?  Did 
he  not  give  bread  to  the  hungry  ? — living  waters  to  the  thirlty  ?— . 
reftore  limbs  to  the  maimed  and  life  to  the  dead  ?  Has  he,  by  his* 
vicarious  fatisfaclion  to  divine  juftice,  delivered  us  from  the  guilt 
of  fin  ?  Has  he,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  delivered  us  in 
ibme  good  meafurc  from  the  power  of  fin,  and  is  he  preparing  us 
for  a  blejfed  immortality  ?  And  ihall  we  have  no  pfalms  to  comme- 
morate thefe  mercies  ? 

Such  ipiritual  fongs  mull  be  derived  from  the  gofprl.  They 
cannot  be  found  in  David.  Hence  we  arc  not  to  be  confined  to 
David's  pfalms.  The  Jewifh  church  iticlf  v  •  re  not  confined  to 
them  but  fung  a  great  variety  of  others  which  you  will  find  cn> 
examination.  Some  were  compofed  by  Afaph,  fame  by  Hemarj 
arid  Ethan.  Mofcs  compofed  ihe  ninetieth.  A  id  a  oonfiderabhsr/ 
number  of  pfalms,  in  ufe  among  the  Jew6,  were  written  by  per- 
fons  whole  names  were  not  recorded.  David  wrote  but  little 
more  than  halt  the  book  of  pislms.  Many  of  them  were  compo- 
fed thrpe  hundred  years  after  his  death-  The  79th  p  fa  I'm  laments 
*he  ravages  of  the  Jewilh  nation  by  >he  Chaldeans  under  the  reign 
of  Nebuch;.'jnezzer.  The  137th  deplores  the  reproaches  of  their- 
enemies  while  they  were  in  a  llate  of  vafTallage  in  Babylon,  The 
85th  and  126th  record  the  divine  gcodnefs  difplayed  in  their  e- 
mancipaiion  from  that  captivity.  This  took  place  about  four  * 
hundred  years  after  thf  death  of  David. 

Thus  you  fee  that  the  Jewifh  church  were  not  confined  to  Da- 
vid's pfalms,  but  fung  many  others,  compofed  by  different  pcr- 
fons,  and  at  long  periods  of  time  after  David's  deceafe.  A  no  if 
they  did  net  conftantly  ufe  them,  why  (kould  we  not  fellow  their 
example  ?  The  Jews  praifed  God  for  new  and  fpecial  favors,  aud 
v»-hy  mould  not  this  he  the  practice  of  chriftian*  I 

(/.)  Judges  v. 


C    9    J 

2.  Let  us  advert  to  fome  predictions  in  the  old  teftament  rc- 
fpecling  the  gofpel   difpenfation. 

Ifaiah,  having  fpoken  of  the 'giving  of  Chrift  for  a  covenant 
of  the  people,  for  a  light  of  the  Gentiles' — as  it  were,  addrefled 
chriftians,  '  fing  unto  the  Lord  a  netvfor.S .  ( k.)  But  where  will 
you  find  this  new  fong  in  the  old  teftament  pfalms  ?  This  pro- 
phecy was  delivered  about  three  hundred  years  after  David's 
time,  as  you  may  learn  from  the  chronology  of  the  kings  of  Jm* 
dah  ;  and  this  (hews  that  God  did  not  intend  to  confine  the  chrif- 
tian  church  to  the  pfalms  of  David. 

There  are  other  prophecies  refpedting  the  days  of  the  gofpel 
which  ferve  to  eftablifh  the  point  under  difcufilon.  Ifaiah  reprc- 
fents  the  '  defert  rejoicing  and  blofibming  as  the  rofe. — It  (ball 
rejoice,  even  with  joy  and  finging.'  (L)  *  Sing  unto  the  Lord  for 
he  hath  done  excellent  things',  (m.) 

In  the  profpect  of  a  large  ingathering  of  fouls  to  Chrift:  among 
the  Gentiles,  the  prophet  enjoins,  '  Sing,  O  heavens;  and  be  joy- 
ful O  earth  ;  and  break  forth  into  finging,  O  mountains  :  for  the 
Lord  hath  comforted  his  people,  and  will  have  mercy  upon  his 
afHicled.'  (n.)  In  that  day  (tall  ye  fay,  praife  the  Lord,  call  up- 
on his  name,  declare  his  doings  among  the  people,  make  men- 
tion that  his  name  is  exalted.  Sing  unto  the  Lord  ;  for  he  haf.U 
done  excellent  things  :  this  is  known  in  all  the  earth.'  (e.) 

To  thefe  occafions,  David's  pfalms  arc  not  adapted.     And  In 
our  hymns  of  praife  fliall  thefe  glorious  things  be  palled  over  in, 
filence  ?  When  God  commands  us  exprefsly,  by  his  prophet,  to 
fing  unto  him  a  new  fong,  becaufe  he  hath  done  excellent  things 
for  us,  lhall  blinded  bigotry  refufe  compliance  ?  Shall  we  reject 
evangelical  fongs  which  recognife  the  excellent  things  the  Lord 
hath  wrought  for  us  ?  Did  the  Jews  fing  praifes  to  God  for  every 
new   deliverance? — did  the  piophets  feel  themfelves  tranfported 
at  every  glimpfe  of  gofpel  light  ?— did  they  foretell  the  bleffings 
c£  gofpel  times,  and  enjoin   upon  chriftians  new  fongs   of  praife 
in  which  thofe  bleffings  are  recognifed  ? — what  mall  we  fay  ?  Can 
we  refill  the  force  of  fuch  practice,  and  oppofe  fuch  exhortations 
and  injunctions  ?  It  muft  hence  appear  manifeft  that  our  Ipirituai 
longs  lhould  be  derived  from  the  gofpel. 
This  truth  gains  additional  ftreiigth, 
4thly,  from  arguments  prefented  to  view  in  the  gofpel. 
Here  we  fliall  find  a  number  of  fongs  of  praife  widely  different 
from  thofe  of  David. 

An  excellent  fong  of  Mary  we  find  recorded  in  Luke's  gofpel. 
(/.)     From  an  overflowing  fpirit,  fhe  celebrates  with  adoring 

(L)  Ifaiah  xlii         (/.)   Ifaiah  xxxr.         (m.)  Ifaiah  xu. 
("■)   Ifaiah  xlii.         (e.)  Ifaiah  xii.         (/.)  LuLc  1.  46—  < 

B 


c 


.0      ] 


admiration,  the  infinite  mercy  of  God  towards  herfelf,  and  the 

fulfilment  of  his  promifes  to  the  Fathers  of  her  ration.  Zacharias' 
lips  burft  open  in  another  rapturous  anthem»  in  which  he  •  bleffes 
the  Lord  God  of  Ifrael,  who  had  vifited  and  redeemed  his  people, 
and  had  given  light  to  them  that  fat  in  darknefs  and  in  the  fha- 
dow  of  dc  nidc  their  feet  into  the  way  of  peace.'  (q. ) 

A  multitude  of  the  heavenly  hoft  announced  the  birth  of  Em- 
manuel in  a  pathetic  anthem  :  «  Glory  to  God  in  the  higheft, 
and  en  earth  peace,  good  will  towards  men.'  ( r.)  Shall  we  not 
catch  the  facred  pleafing  found  and  re-echo  the  enraptured  fong? 
The  aged  Simeon  became  invigorated  by  the  view  of  Mcfnah, 
»nd  broke  out  into  devout  and  tranfporting  raptures  of  praife  in 
the  temple.  Anna  the  prophetefs,  in  a  fong,  '  gave  thanks,  and 
fpaka  of  him  to  all  that  looked  for  redemption  in  Jerufalem.  fs.J 
Tims  you  fee  that  evangelical  fengs  were  introduced  at  the  dawn 
of  the  gofpel.  Thefe  perfons  were  jews  and  fome  of  them  priefts 
and  prophets;  but  you  clearly  fee  that  their  attention  was  diverted 
from  the  old  teftament  pfa!ms,and  that  they  were  infpired  to  fing 
evangelical  anthems  upon  the  advent  of  the  promifed  Meffiah. 
New  mercies  under  the  old  teftament  always  induced  the  church 
to  make  new  fongs  of  praife.  And  thofe  who  embraced  the  Sa- 
vior, continued  the  fame  rational  practice  in  the  beginning  of  the 
gofpel  difpenfation.  As  focn  as  the  gofpel  day  began  to  dawn, 
the  faints  began  to  lay  afide  the  jewifh,  and  adopt  an  evangelical, 
pfalmody.  And  fhall  we  not  follow  their  example,  and  take  our 
fpiritual  fongs  from  the  gofpel  ?  Or  fhall  we  remain  with  the  un- 
believing jews  and  retain  their  ritual  ?  If  we  are  jews  in  one  part 
of  divine  worfhip,  why  fhall  we  not  be  jews  in  every  part  ? — Can 
we  in  David's  pfalms  praife  God  for  the  birth,  life  and  miracles 
of  Chrift  ?  Did  Mary,  Zacharias,  the  angels,  Simeon  and  Anna, 
fins;  new  fongs  of  thankfgiving  upon  the  birth  of  theblefled  Re- 
deemer ?  And  fhall  we  not  recognife  this  joyful  event  in  our  holy 
anthems  ?  What  reafon  can  be  afiigned  for  the  unaccountable  and 
ftrange  conduct  of'thofe,  who  reject  evangelical  fongs  through  a 
partiality  fct  the  jewifh  fyftcm  I 

What  did  the  multitude  fing  when  Chrift  made  his  triumphant 
entry  into  Jerufalem  ?  They  began  to  '  rejoice,  and  praife  God, 
for  all  the  mighty  works  they  had  feen :  faying,  blefled  be  the 
king  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  peace  in  heaven,  and 
glory  in  the  higheft.'.  ft.)  Shall  we  nqver  join  in  this  facred 
anthem?  Did  our  Lord  rebuke  the  multitude,  as  the  Pharjfeet 
requefted  ?  Did  he  intimate  that  peculiar  mercies  fhculd  not  be 
the  fubjecls  of  their  fpiritual  fongs  ?  No,  he  rebuked  the  Pharifeetg 

(q.)  Luke  i.         (r.)  Luke  ii.         (s.)  Luke  ii. 
(*.)  Luke  x'm. 


C   ti  ] 

and  declared  that  if  his  difciples  mould  hold  their  peace,  the  ftones 
would  immediately  ciy  out  ?  And  are  thefe  things  lefs  interefting 
to  us  becaufe  they  took  place  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  ?  Mult 
believers  under  the  gofpel  fay  nothing  of  the  mighty  acts  of  their 
Savior  in  their  fongs  of  praife  ?  Shall  we  refufe  to  celebrate  in  our 
anthems  the  triumphs  and  glory  of  the  bleffed  Redeemer, and  pre- 
fer finging  the  falvationof  Ifrael  achieved  by  Mofes,  or  the  vic- 
tories of  Jofhua  and  David  ?  Are  thefe  things  to  be  compared 
with  the  victories  of  Chrift  the  Lord  of  Mofes,  and  of  Jofhua  and 
David  ?  Shall  we  pafs  in  eternal  filence  his  acts,  his  unparalleled 
conquefts  over  all  the  powers  of  hell  when  we  celebrate  his  piai- 
fes  ?  Be  aftoniftied  at  this,  O  ye  heavens  ! 

Let  us  examine  the  writings  of  the  apoftles.  Paul  breaks  out 
in  this  glorious  anthem,  after  an  affectionate  view  of  redeeming; 
love  ;  «  bleffed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift> 
Who  hath  bleffed  us  with  all  fpiritual  bleffings  in  heavenly  things, 
in  (Thrift  ;  according  as  he  hath  chofen  us  in  him,  before  the  foun* 
elation  of  the  world,  that  we  mould  be  holy  and  without  blame 
before  him  in  love  :  having  predeftinated  us  to  the  adoption  of 
children  by  Jefus  Chrift  unto  himfelf,  according  to  the  good  plea- 
fure  of  his  will,  to  the  praife  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,  wherein 
he  hath  made  us  accepted  in  the  beloved;  in  whom  we  have  re« 
demption  through  his  blood,  the  forgivenefs  of  fins,  according  to 
the  riches  of  his  grace.'  (u.)  Is  this  the  language  of  the  old 
teftament  ?  Or  is  it  not  purely  evangelical  ?  And  fhall  we  never 
celebrate  in  our  fongs  thefe  immenfe  bleffings,  in  which  we  are 
fo  deeply  interefted?  Is  not  Paul,  under  divine  infpiratioa,  a  fure 
guide  ?  He  praifed  God  for  redemption  through  his  fon,  not  in 
the  language  of  David,  but  in  that  of  the  gofpel. 

Peter,  the  apoftle  of  the  circumcifion,  leaves  on  record  another 
fong  of  praife  fimilar  to  that  of  Paul,  (v.)  And  the  beloved 
John  erects  another  exalted  monument  of  gratitude  to  the  great 
.*  Prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth.  Unto  him,  that  loved  us,  and 
wafhed  us  from  our  fins,  in  his  own  blood ;  and  hath  made  us 
kings,  and  priefts  unto  God  and  the  Father ;  to  him  be  glory* 
and  dominion  forever  and  ever.  Amen,  (to.)  And  what  hymns 
of  praife  are  fung  by  the  fpirits  ©f  juft  men  made  perfect  ? — 
*  They  fang  a  new  fong,  faying,  thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book, 
and  open  the  feals  thereof;  for  thou  waft  flain,  and  hath  redeem- 
ed us  to  God  by  thy  blood,  out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue, 
and  people,  and  nation  ;  and  hath  made  us  unto  our  God,  kings 
and  priefts.'  (x.)  «  I  beheld,  and  lo,  a  great  multitude,  which 
no  man  could  number,  of  all  nations,  and  kindreds,  and  tongues 

(«.)  Ephefians  i.         (•?>,)  i.  P&ter  i.         (w.)  Revelation  i. 
(«.)  Revelation  v. 


[  «*  ] 

flood  before  the  throne,  and  before  the  lamb,  clothed  in  vrhite 
robes  and  palms  in  their  hands  ;  and  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  fay- 
ing, faivation  to  cur  God,  who  fitteth  upon  the  throne  and  unto 
the  Lamb.'  (j.)  *  And  I  beheld,  and  I  heard  the  voice  of  ma- 
ny angels,  faying,  worthy  is  the  Lamb,  that  was  {lain,  to  receive 
power,  and  riches,  and  wifdom,  and  ftrength,  and  honor,  and 
blefling. '  (a.) — Permit  me  to  aik  where  you  will  find  thefe  fongs 
in  the  old  teftament  ?  Here  you  fee  ihe  apoftles  of  our  Lord,  the 
faints  and  angel?  in  heaven,  celebrating  the  praifes  of  God  and 
the  Lamb  in  fpiritual  fongs  no  where  to  be  found  in  the  pfalms 
of  David.  And  can  it  be  finful  to  walk  in  rr.e  footfteps  of  the 
flock  ? — to  follow  our  Lord's  apoftles  ? — to  imitate  the  ble/Ted 
above  ?  The  fongs  of  the  angels  and  faints  in  heaven  are  wholly 
evangelical,  as  appears  from  thofe  which  John  records  in  the 
Revelation. 

Our  Lord  has  taught  us  to  pray,  '  Thy  will  be  done  on  earth 
as  it  is  in  heaven.'  But  angels  and  faints  in  heaven  art  employ- 
ed, in  celebrating  the  praifes  of  the  Redeemer,  in  fongs  unknown 
to  the  jewifti  church.  This  is  the  will  of  God  in  heaven.  We 
mud  pray  that  this  will  may  be  done,  and  we  ourfelves  muft  do 
it  on  earth.  But  if  we  do  not  praife  our  Redeemer  in  evangeli- 
cal fongs,  we  are  not  doing  his  will,  in  one  eftential  point,  on 
earth,  as  it  is  done  in  heaven.  And  thefe  fongs  are  not  to  be 
found  in  the  old  teftament  pfalms.  The  fong  above  is  «  Worthy 
is  the  Lamb  that  was  flain,  to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and 
wifdom,  and  ftrength,  and  honor,  and  glory  and  blefling.'  And 
/hall  this  fong  never  be  fung  in  the  gofpel  church,  becaufe  it  it 
evangelical  ?  I  can  difecver  no  other  reafon  for  excluding  it 
from  chriftian  aflemblies. 

That  the  fubjeft  matter  of  our  pfalms,  hymns,  and  fpiritual 
fongs,  (hould  chiefly  be  taken  from  the  gofpel,  may  be  confirmed 
5'thly,  from  the  practice  of  the  church  immediately  after   the 
time  of  the  apoftles. 

I  have  already  (he  wed  you  that  a  number  of  the  jews  and  the 
apoftles  fung  new  fongs  at  the  commencement  ©f  the  new  tefta- 
ment difpenlation.  There  is  not  a  remote  hint  that  the  apoftles 
vfed,  in  public  wotfhip,  the  pfalms  of  David,  after  our  Lord's 
afcention.  The  primitive  chriftians,  who  immediately  fucceed- 
ed,  muft  be  fuppofed  to  have  known  the  practice  of  the  apoftles. 
And  if  I  can  make  it  appear  that  the  primitive  chriftians,  did 
not  ufs  David's  pfalms,  but  pfalms,  hymns,  and  fpiritual  fongs 
taken  from  the  gofpel,  I  think  the  point  under  difcuffion  will  be 
fully  eftabliihed. 

The  apoftles  had  been  taught  by  Chrift  himfelf,  '  That  all  mes 

(;)  Revelation  vii.         (*.)  Revelation  v. 

I 


E   >3   3 

Iiou'd  honor  the  Son;  even  as  they  honor  the  Father.'  (a)  We 
honor  Chiift,  when  we  preach  him'crucificd.  We  honor  Chrift 
when  we  pray  to  the  Father  in  his  name.  Thus  we  honor  the 
Son  in  two  branches  of  public  worfhip.  And  fhould  we  not 
honor  Chrift  in  the  other  part  of  worfhip,  by  finging  hymns  of 
praife  to  him  ?  I  have  fhewed  that  this  was  the  apoftolic  practice, 
and  will  new  fhew  that  the  primitive  chriftians  followed  the  ex- 
ample of  the  apoftlcs. 

We  have  not  all  that  light,  on  this  fubjecr,  that  we  could  wife 
from  ecclefiaftical  hiftory.  Much  darknefs  hangs  over  the  fir  ft 
ages  of  the  world,  and  over  the  firft  periods  of  chriftianity.  How- 
ever, we  have  coniiderable  light  to  guide  our  fteps  through  the 
beginning  of  the  gofpel  difpenfaUon.  We  havefuGicient  to  fhew 
that  the  primitive  chriftians  tiled  hymns  of  praife,  in  honor  to 
Chrift,  which  were  derived  fr«m  the  gofpel. 

Pliny  the  younger  is  acknowledged  to  be  a  correct  writer.  la 
feis  celebrated  letter  to  Trajan  the  Emperor,  written  probably  ia 
the  year  of  our  Lord  107,  he  affirms  that  the  chriftians  *  were 
wont  to  affemble  on  a  ftated  day,'  I  fuppofe  the  Lord's  day, 
'  before  it  was  light,  and  fing  among  thcmfelves  alternately  a 
hymn  to  Chrift  as  God.'*  This  teftimony  has  been  alleged  by 
Grotius,  as  a  proof  of  the  chriftian  religion,  and  by  many  others, 
who  have  written  in  defence  of  Chriftianity. 

Thus  you  fee  from  the  teftimony  of  Pliny  that  the  primitive 
chriftians  were  not  confined  to  David's  pfalms.  A  few  of  them, 
it  appears,  were  fung.  Tertullian  obferves  that  the  133d  wa3 
fung  in  his  day.f  Thole  pfalms  of  David  which  are  not  peculiar 
to  him,  nor  to  the  jewifti  church,  in  regard  to  locality  and  the 
ceremonial  rites,  may  be  ufed  in  different  ages.  It  is  the  exclujive 
vfe  of  David's  pfalms  that  I  oppofe.  And  I  am  fupported  by 
fufticient  evidence  taken  from  the  praflice  of  primitive  chtiftians. 
I  can  fee  no  reafon  why  Tertullian  mould  particularize  one  pfalra 
of  David  if  they  were  ail  in  general  ufe.  That  other  f«ngs  of 
praife  were  in  general  ufe  is  evident. 

Bafnagc,  in  his  celebrated  hiftory  of  the  chriftian  church,  gives 
us  a  large  account  of  the  devotions  of  the  primitive  chriftians 
from  Tertullian.  Teitullian  was  an  eminent  father  of  the  chrif- 
tian church  in  Africa,  and  flourimed  towards  the  clofe  of  the 
fecond  century.  In  his  tiraie  chriftians  were  not  confined  to 
David's  pfalms,  but  thought  themfelves  at  full  liberty,  in  their 
religious  worfhip,  to  ufe  a  variety  offpiritual  fongs.  Hence  fays 
Bafnage,  '  that  neither  the  prayers  they  made  to  God,  nor  the 
hymns  which  they  fung  to  his  honor  v/erc  reduced  to  rule  ;  but 
every  one  drew  them  from  the  kofy  fcr'tpiure,  or  from  his  own  trt&- 

(a.)  John  v. 
*   Set  JtfendUt,  Ictttr  [A.J  f  Sec  Jj>j>endix,  Utter  [B-j 


[   n  j 

fort,  according  to  his  genius  or  difpofition.  They  fang;,  for  id* 
fiance,  hymns  in  thofe  feafts  of  chaiity  and  communion,  which 
christians  held  together  in  the  evening.'* 

Origen,  another  renowned  father  of  the  church  in  the  fecond 
cemmy,  •  exhorted  the  people,'  fays  Bafnage,  'to  drive  with  their 
hymns,  by  their  pfalms,  by  their  fpiritual  longs,  crying  to  God, 
that  they  mi^ht  obtain  the  victory  through  our  Lord  jefus.'-J- 
Here,  this  father  feems  to  have  an  immediate  reference  to  my 
text,  in  which,  an  cxprefs  regard  to  Chrift,  is  enjoined  upon  chris- 
tians in  their  longs  of  devotion. 

Eufebtus,  who  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  father  of  church  hif- 
tory,  introduces  an  author  writing  thus, — ■  Who  is  he  that  is  ig- 
norant of  the  books  of  Irenaeus,  Melito,  and  the  reft,  which  declare 
Chrift  to  be  God  and  man  ? — The  pfalms  alfo  and  hymns  of  the  bre- 
thren, written  at  the  beginning  by  the  faithful,  do  fet  forth  the  prai- 
ses of  Chrift  the  word  of  God,  and  attribute  divinity  to  him.';}: 

Nepos,  an  Egyptian  bifhop,  compoled  many  hymns,  with 
Which  many  of  the  brethren  were  mightily  pleafed — he  was  a 
man  eminent  for  his  Hull  in  the  holy  fcriptures,  and  for  the  many 
pfalms  and  hymns  he  compoled,  which  the  brethren  fung  in  their 
public  meetings. *$ 

The  argument  will  receive  additional  ftrength  from  another 
paflage  in  Euiebius.     Paulus  Samofata,  bifhop  of  Antioch,  revi- 
ved the  herefy  of  Artemon.    Two  councils  of  biihops,  pielbyters, 
and  deacons  were  called  upon  this  account.     In  the  laft  council, 
about  the  year  270,  he  was  excommunicated.    Among  the  char- 
ges alleged  againft  him,  one  was,  that  he  abolifhed  thofe  pfalms 
•which  were  wont  to  be  fung  to  the  honor  of  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift, 
as  novel,  and  compofed  by  modern  authors. '||     Here  we  have  a 
whole  council  agreeing  that  pfalms  had  been,  and  ought  ft  ill  to 
be,  fung,  in  honor  of  Chrift,  and  accufing  him  who   had  abolifh- 
ed them  of  malicious  wickednefs,  and  as  denying  his  God.  And 
this   council  wrote  a  letter  to  the  whole  catholic  church  under 
heaven,  expecting  that  they  would  juftify  the  fentence  of  excom- 
munication which  had  been  palfed  againft  this  heretic.     But  how 
could  this  council  expect  that  all  the  churches  of  Chrift  would 
join  in  condemning  this  man  for  abolifhing  thofe  pfalms  and 
hymns,  if  they  had  not  been  in  life  ?  Does  not  this  prove  to  a  de- 
monftration  that  pfalms  and  hymns,  in  honor  of  Chrift  were  fung 
in  all  the  churches  ? 

Here  we  have  the  firft  rife  of  oppofition  to  evangelical  pfalms 
pnd  hymns.  It  arofe  from  Arians  who  oppofed  our  Lord's  di- 
vinity. 

*   See  Appendix^  letter  [C]         %  See  Appendix,  htter   TE.] 

I  See  Appendix*  Inter  [D.]         [|   See  Appendix,  letter  £F.J 

*■§  Dr.  Lardner,  Vol.  3.  p-  94. 


f    >5    ] 

A  fourth  council  was  held  in  Toledo*  in  Spain,  in  the  year 
633,  when  a  number  of  prefbyters  of  France,  were  excommuni- 
cated for  refufing  to  fing  the  hymns  of  Hylary  and  Ambrofe, 
which  had  been  in  ufe  nearly  three  bundled  years.  Hence  it  ap- 
pears that  the  fucceffors  of  the  apoftles  compofed  the  hymns, 
pfalms  and  fpiritual  fongs  that  were  fung  by  the  primitive  church. 
And  thefe  fongs  of  praile  were  ufed  in  the  churches  for  three  hun- 
dred years  after  Chrift.  About  this  time  the pfa!ms  of  David  were 
jirjl  introduced.  This  Moiheim  declares  to  be  fact,  who  ma  ft  be 
ranked  among  our  beft  ecclefiaftic  hiftorians.  And  Theodoret 
informs  us  how  they  were  introduced.  They  were  brousht  in 
by  Anans,  and  not  by  orthodox  chrtfHans.  David's  pfalms  were  in- 
troduced at  Antioch  in  the  time  of  Leontius,  who  was  biftiop  or 
that  city,  and  a  ftrong  Arian.  Flavian  and  Diodorus  two  per- 
fons,  who  had  not  attained  to  any  ecclefiaftic  dignity,  but  had 
great  influence  among  the  people, (irft  mads  the  innovation.  They 
divided  the  choirs  of  fingers  at  Antioch  into  two  parts,  and  gave 
them  David's  pfalms  to  fmg  by  turns.  This  cuftom  fpread  ex- 
tenfively  among  the  churches.  The  principal  realbn  was,  be- 
caufe  this  century  became  devoted  to  Arianifm.  Conftantius 
the  emperor,  and  chief  of  the  influential  characters  were  Arians. 

Thus  the  hymns  and  pfalms,  which  had,  from  the  beginning, 
been  ufed  in  the  church,  were  rejected.  They  continued  in  ufe, 
however,  in  fome  parts  where  Arianifm  did  not  lb  much  prevail, 
until  feven  hundred  years  after  Chrift.  At  this  time  the  Pope  of, 
Rome  began  to  gain  his  afcendency,  and  he  prevailed,  until  Eu- 
rope yielded  to  his  authority.  In  fuch  a  fituation  of  things,  a 
reformation  in  fmging  could  not  be  effected,  even  after  Arianifm, 
was  in  a  great  meafure  removed  from  the  church,  and  of  courfe 
the  pfalms  of  David  continued  in  ufe. 

Upon  the  whole  then,  it  is  mar.if.-ft,  that  no  practice  of  the 
chriftian  church,  appears  more  primitive  and  apoftolical  than 
that  of  fmging  pfalms,  hymns  and  fpiritual  fongs,  which  are  ta- 
ken from  the  gofpel.  They  were  in  general  ufe  for  three  hundred 
years  after  our  Lord,  during  which  time  David's  pfalms  were 
never  fung,  except  a  few  of  them  occafionaiiy. 

In  my  text,  Paul  begins  and  ends  with  Chrift.  He  leads  us  to 
the  word  of  Chrift  as  the  copious  fountain  from  which  our  holy 
anthems  are  to  be  derived.  The  primitive  christians  underftood! 
the  text  in  this  fenfe,  and  compofed  and  fung  hymns  and  pfalms 
in  honor  of  Chrift.  This  practice  continued  in  the  church  until 
three  hundred  years  after  Chrift,  when  it  was  oppofed  by  the  A— 
rians,  who  denied  our. Lord's  divinity.  And  in  thofe  churches 
which  were  not  fo  much  under  the  influence  of  Arianifm.  evan- 
gelical fongs  were  fung  for  feven  centuries.  After  this  the 
ignorance,  bigotry,  fupaftiuon  and  afiti  chtiUianifm  of  popery 


C    ««    3 

prevailed,  and  like  a  mighty  deluge,  fwept  away  every  thing  that 
was  truly  apoftolical  and  primitive,  for  a  number  of  centuries. 
But  as  ioon  as  the  church  emerged  from  this  awful  deluge, fhe 
began  to  reform,  not  only  in  doctrine,  but  in  her  worlhip,  and 
pf.ilmody.  The  ancient  evangelical  fongs  of  praife  were  revived, 
and  they  have  been  greatly  improved  in  almoft  all  the  protetlant 
churches.     The  exceptions  are  exceeding  few  in  number. 

II.  I  now  proceed  to  fhew  what  fyftem  of  pfalmody  is  bed 
adapted  to  the  g ofpel  diipenfation. 

Some  of  David's  pfalms  may  be  fung  with  propriety.  But  as 
a  fyftem,  it  appears,  they  were  not  defigned  by  the  head  of  the 
church,  to  be  ufed  under  the  gofpel  diipenfation.  We  fhould 
borrow  light  and  advantage  from  David,  and  from  the  prophets, 
from  the  evangclifls  and  ifom  the  apoftles.  Our  fyftem  of  pfalm- 
ody fhould  be  taken  generally  from  the  fcriptures  of  the  eld  and 
new  teftament,  but  fpecially  and  chiefly  from  the  new  teftament. 
The  types  of  the  old  teftament,  give  place  to  the  antitype, 
and  the  fhddows  to  the  fubftance,  under  the  gofpel.  In  the  gof- 
pel,  the  prophecies  which  relate  to  the  Median,  are  accomplished. 
And  theiefore  every  branch  of  divine  worlhip  fhould  be  evangeli- 
cal. Not  only  the  doctrines  we  preach,  and  prayers  we  make, 
but  alfo  the  pfalms  we  fing,  fhould  be  replete  with  the  gofpel. 
We  preach  Chi  ift  crucified,  we  pray  in  his  name,  and  Chrift 
(hould  be  the  theme  of  our  fpiritual  fongs.  I  cannot  conceive 
any  ground  on  which  to  eftablifh  the  doctiine  of  dividing  Chrift, 
or  of  our  being  partly  chriftians  and  partly  jews  in  our  worfhip- 
ping  affembles. 

Our  fyftem  of  pfalmody,  fhc  'ace  the  effential  doctrines 

of  our  holy  religion.  That  there  is  an  infinite  ar<d  eternal  God,  the 
creator  and  governor  of  the  world,  is  the  firfc  principle  of  religion. 
This  principle  runs  through  the  bible,  It  is  not  peculiar  to  any 
one  part.  And  therefore  our  pfalms  and  hymns  which  embrace 
this  principle  may  be  founded  on  the  fcriptures  generally.  The 
doctrine  of  the  holy  Trinity  fhould  fuftain  an  eminent  place  in 
our  divine  anthems.  But  this  doctrine  is  very  obfeurely  taught 
Ml  the  old  teftament.  Wc  are  chiefly  indebted  to  the  new  teftament 
for  our  knowledge  of  this  important  doctrine.  Our  pfalms  there- 
fore (which  include  this  doctrine  rnuft  be  chiefly  taken  from  the 

•  teftament.  The  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  of  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit,  is  among  the  effentials  of  our  religion.  But  of  this  the 
jewifh  church  was   amazingly  ignorant.     The  pfalms  of  David 

'<  in  oh  (cure  language  on  this  important  fubject.  And  fha'l 
we  pafs  over  in  iiknee,  in  our  pfalms,  the  fulaefs,  the  glory,  and 
perfections  of  our  Savior  and  Comforter?  Thcfc  precious  truths 
arc  clearly  revealed  in  '.he  gofpel,  and  if  we  celebrate  them,  our 
fong«  puft  be  derived  frcm  the  g  ifpel.    The  doctrines  of  pre 


C    «7    J 

tination,  election,  adoption,  juftification  through  the  merits  of 
Chrift,  regeneration  and  fanct  ideation  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
refurrection  and  felicity  above,  are  doctrines  lb  obfeurely  taught 
in  the  old  teftament,  that  the  apoftle  exprefsly  declares  that « life 
and  immortality  are  brought  to  light  by  the  gofpel.'  (b.) 

The  birth,  life,  fufferings,  death,  refurrection,  afcention,  and 
interceffion  of  Chrift,  and  his  fscond  coming  to  judgment,  are 
doctrines  taught  with  infinitely  more  clearnefs  in  the  new  tefta« 
znent  than  in  David's  pfalms. 

David  prays,  '  Purge  me  vTith  hyfop — blot  out  my  tranfgrefs* 
ions — walh  me  thoroughly  from  mine  iniquity,  and  cleanfe  me 
from  fin.'  (c)  But  here  is  not  a  word  of  being  justified  through 
the  righteoufnefs  of  our  Redeemer,  and  waflied  in  the  fountain 
of  his  blood.  And  therefore  you  cannot  celebrate  the  praifes  of 
Jefus  Chrift,  for  his  meritorious  righteoufnefs,  his  precious  blood* 
his  prevalent  interceffioa  in  heaven,  and  for  his  fecond  coming  to 
judgment,  unlefs  you  ufe  an  evangelical  pfulmody  which  embra- 
ces thefe  doctrines. 

It  is  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  enlighten  the  underftand- 
ing,  convince  the  finner  of  iniquity,  regenerate  the  heart,  guide 
us  into  the  truth,  fanctify  and  comfort  us.  But  where  can  you 
find  thefe  precious  offices  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  old  teftament: 
pfalms  ?  The  glory  of  the  bleffed  Spirit  we  fhould  celebrate  in 
hymns  of  praife,  and  if  we  perform  this  hidifpenfible  duty,  our 
hymns  mull  be  taken  from  the  gofpel. 

The  promifes  of  the  old  teftament  are  accomplifhed  in  the  new. 
But  there  are  many  promifes  peculiar  to  the  gofpel,  which  arj 
no  where  mentioned  in  the  old  teftament.  And  fhould  not  thefe 
precious  promifes  have  a  place  in  our  fongs  of  praife.  The  jews 
had  accefs  to  God  through  priePts  andfacrifices.  '  [  will  go  into 
thy  houfe  with  burnt  offerings  i — I  will  oirer  unto  thee  burnt  fa- 
crifices  of  fallings,  with  the  incenfe  of  rams  ;  I  will  offer  bullocks 
with  goats.'  Thus  fang  David,  (d.)  But  that  fyftem  beirg 
abolifhed,  we  have  accefs  to  the  throne  of  grace,  through  the 
new  and  living  way  which  Chrift  hath  confecrated  to  us 
through — his  fiefh.  (e.)  And  fhould  not  this  occupy  a  place  in 
our  pfalms  ? 

The  Lord's  fupper  and  baptifm  are  gofpel  ordinances.  And 
fhould  not  our  fongs  recognife  thefe  precious  ordinances  ?  Are 
we  baptifed  in  the  name  of  the  adorable  Trinity  ?  And  in  the 
Supper  do  we  not  commemorate  the  love  of  the  Father  in  the 
gift  of  the  Son  ? — the  love  of  the  Son  in  conferring  to  be  our  Sa- 

(b.)  2  Timothy  i.  io  f>)  Pfalm  li.  (d.)  Pfalm  Ixvi. 
(<?.)  Hebrews  x. 


t     »8     ] 

vlor,  and  in  what  he  did  and  differed  ? — the  love  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  manifefted  in  the  execution  of  his  offices?  And  fhall  not 
thefe  things  occupy  a  eonfpicuous  place  in  our  hymns  of  praife 
to  the  SACRED  THREE. 

Thus  it  is  manifeft  that  the  pfalmody  which  is  fuited  to  the 
gofpel  ftate,  fhould  be  taken  from  the  gofpel,  and  contain  its  pe- 
culiarities. But  the  pfalms  of  David  do  not  embrace  the  pecu- 
liarities of  the  gofpel,  and  this  is  a  principal  reafbn  why  they  are 
not,  as  a  fyftem  of  pfalmody,  fuited  to  the  gofpel  difpenfation. 
The  pfalms  of  David  were  adapted  to  the  ceremonial  rites,  and 
fince  thofe  rites  are  abolifhed,  the  pfalms  cannot  be  fung  with 
any  propriety.  It  is  very  evident  that  many  of  David's  pfalms 
sire  fo  intimately  connected  with,  and  founded  upon,  the  ceremo- 
nial institutions,  that  they  have  no  being  beyond  the  institutions 
themfelves.  Of  this  defcription  are  thofe  which  declare  that  the 
jnftitutions  ftillexift,  and  in  finging  which  the  worfhippers  affirm 
that  they  will  practice  agreeably  to  them.  I  will  for  fake  of 
example  illuftrate  this  a  little.  David  fmgs,  «  I  will  go  into  thy 
houfe  with  burnt  offerings  : — t  will  offer  bullocks  with  goats,  (f.) 
While  the  cererrlonial  rites  exifted,  David  was  obligated  to  offer 
iacnfices  :  and  therefore  this  pfalm  was  perfectly  adapted  to  the 
ceremonial  fyftem.  But  what  have  we  to  do  with  thofe  famfi- 
ces  under  the  gofpel  ?  They  were  types  of  Chrift,  and  termina- 
ted in  the  great  facrifice  which  Chrift  made  of  himfelf.  So  that 
we  cannot  in  truth  declare  we  will  make  thofe  offerings,  when 
•we  do  not  intend  to  make  them  ;  and  fmcc  thofe  very  offerings 
have  been  abrogated  by  Jcfus  Chrift. 

Again,  *  Blow  up  the  trumpet  in  the  new  moon,  in  the  time 
appointed,  on  our  folemn  leaft  day.'  (g.)  Thefe  new  moons, 
and  feaft  days  are  annulled,  and  therefore  we  cannot  fing  this 
pfalm.  '  Praife  him  with  the  pfaltery  and  harp.  Praife  him  with 
the  timbrel  and  dance  :  praife  him  with  ftringed  inftruments  snd 
organs.  Praife  him  upon  the  loud  cymbals  :  praife  bim  upon  the 
high  founding  cymbals.'  (h.)  Is  it  not  impoffiblc  to  fing  this 
pfalm  unlefs  we  introduce  thefe  inftruments  ?  For  the  rfalmift 
exprefsly  commands  us  to  praife  God  on  thefe  inftruments.  Thus 
you  fee  that  many  of  the  old  tcftament  pfalms  are  fo  connected 
with  the  ceremonial  fyftem,  and  interwoven  with  the  inftruments 
of  mufic  then  in  ufe,  that  we  cannot  fing  them,  unlefs  we  per- 
form the  ceremonial  rites  on  which  they  are  founded,  and  ufe  the 
inftruments  of  mufic  with  which  they  are  connected.  And  this. 
is  a  concluiive  argument  that  God  never  defigncd  them  as  a  fyf- 
tem of  pfalms  for  the  gofpel  church.  It  is  contrary  to  the  na- 
ture oi  things  to  fing  them.    And  God  never  commands  contra, - 

(/.)  Piklm  lxvi.        f»  Pfilm  luxi.        (h.)  Pfalm  cL 


C     >9    J 

di«5Hons.  The  fongs  of  praife  under  the  old  teftament  difpenfa- 
tion  embraced  the  peculiarities  of  that  (late  of  things.  And  it 
muft  be  evident  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  that  in  the  chriftian 
church,  the  fongs  of  praife  fliould  embrace  the  peculiarities  of 
the  golpel 

There  is  but  one  paflage  of  fcripture,  that  I  have  fecn  alleged, 
that  contains  in  it  the  leaft  ftudow  of  divine  authority  to  fing; 
David's  pfolms.  This  paflage  is  produced  by  Dr.  Clark,  and 
others  of  the  fame  opinion.  Upon  invetligation  it  will  be  found 
not  to  give  the  fhadow  of  countenance  to  their  fentiments.  The 
paflage  is  recorded  in  the  fecond  book  of  Chionicles,  and  the; 
twenty-ninth  chapter,  and  the  thirtieth  verfe.  '  Moreover,  He- 
zekiah  the  king  and  the  princes  commanded  the  Levites  to  fing 
praife  unto  the  Lord  with  the  words  of  David,  and  of  Afaph  the 
feer  :  and  they  fang  praifes  with  gladnefs,  and  they  bowed  their 
heads  and  worshipped.'  But  will  any  man  of  common  fenfe,  and 
common  acquaintance  with  fcripture,  ferioufly  affirm  that  this 
paflage  contains  an  injunction  on  chriftians  to  fing  the  pfalms  of 
David  ?  Let  us  examine  the  text  and  context.  We  learn  from 
the  firft  part  of  the  chapter,  that  the  temple  of  God  had  been  de- 
filed— the  doors  fhut — the  lamps  put  out — the  incenfe  and  offer- 
ings had  not  been  made  for  a  long  time,  on  which  account  the 
"wrath  of  God  had  fallen  heavy  upon  his  people.  The  fathers 
had  been  flain  with  the  fword,  their  fons  and  daughters,  and 
their  wives  made  captives.  Such  was  the  deplciable  ftate  of  the 
temple,  and  jewiih  nation  when  Hezekiah  came  to  the  throne. 
In  the  third  verfe  we  are  informed,  that  in  the  firft  year  of  his 
reign,  he  opened  the  door  of  the  Lord's  houfe,  and  fet  it  in  order 
for  the  performance  of  divine  fervice. — They  prepared  the  offer- 
ings which  God  required  to  be  made  in  his  houfe.  Inftructions 
were  then  given  to  the  Levites.  «  And  he  fet  the  Levites  in  the 
houfe  of  the  Lord  with  cymbals,  with  pfalteries,  and  with  harps, 
according  to  the  commandment,  of  David,  and  of  Gad  the  king's 
feer,  and  Nathan  the  prophet :  for  fo  was  the  commandment  of 
the  Lord  by  his  prophets.'  '  When  the  burnt  offerings  began, 
the  fong  of  the  Lord  alfo  began  with  the  trumpets,  and  with  the 
inftrument  ordained  by  David  king  of  Ifrael.'  Now,  what  does 
all  this  prove  ?  It  (hews  clearly  that  on  this  particular  occafion 
they  fang  the  words  of  David  and  Afaph.  But  were  they  not 
as  explicitly  commanded  to  fmg  with  cymbals,  pfalteries,  harps, 
and  trumpets  ?  And  if  the  commandment  obliges  us  to  fmg  the 
plalms  of  David  and  Afaph,  does  it  not  as  ftrongly  oblige  us  to 
fing  with  cymbals,  pfalteries,  harps,  and  trumpets  ?  Has  God  any 
where  declared  that  we  muft  fing  the  words  and  not  ufe  the  in~ 
ftrumcnts?  It  is  evident  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  that  '  the 
commandment  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophets/  extend;}  equally  to 


f     «o     ] 

the  fongs,  and  to  the  inftruments : — I  Imagine  that  the  advocates 
for  ihe  old  teftament  pfalmody  would  oppofe  the  introduction  of 
thefe  inftruments  more  ftrenuoufly  than  any  other  denomination 
of  chriftians.  And  herein  they  are  inconfiftent ;  and  they  fepa- 
rate  what  God  has  connected  in  his  commandment. 

T  have  now  proved  that  we  have  no  authority,  divine  nor  hu- 
man, for  ringing  David's  plalms  ;  and  I  have  offered  various  ar- 
guments to  fhew,  that  they  mould  not  be  ufed  as  a  fyftem  of 
pfalmody  under  the  gofpel.  On  the  contrary  I  have  proved  that 
our  pfalms,  hymns,  and  fpiritual  fongs  mould  be  founded  chiefly 
on  the  gofpel. 

Thofe  on  the  oppofite  fide,  would  exclude  all  the  word  of  God 
from  their  pfalmody  except  the  pfalms  of  David.  But  I  would 
exclude  no  part,  that  would  afford  us  light  and  advantage  in  our 
fongs  ef  praife.  I  would  take  fome  from  David  and  the  pro- 
phets ;  but  I  would  take  chiefly  from  the  gofpel,  becaufe  here 
'  life  and  immortality  are  brought  to  light.'  I  have  alio  fhewed 
what  fyftem  of  pfalmody  would  be  the  bed  adapted  to  the  gof- 
pel worlhip : — that  it  fhculd  in  an  eminent  degree  embrace  the 
peculiarities  of  the  gofpel. 

I  fhall  here  take  notice  of  the  different  verfions  which  are  ufed 
in  the  churches.  There  arc  feveral  verfions  in  ufe  in  the  Low 
Dutch  church  in  America.  The  Epifcopal  church  has  another, 
and  different  from  the  reft.  The  German  church  has  a  number 
of  verfions,  if  my  information  is  correct.  Theie  is  another,  com- 
pofed  by  Sternhold  and  Hopkins,  that  was  in  ufe  a  confiderable 
time  in  fome  churches.  The  church  of  Scotland  has  made  ufe 
of  feveral  verfions.  The  one  in  prefent  ufe  was  compofed  by  Mr. 
Roufe.  Doctor  Watts'  verfion  is  ufed  in  the  moft  of  the  prefby- 
terian  churches  in  America,  in  the  independent  churches  of  Eng- 
land, in  the  congregational  churches  in  New-England,  and  in  the 
ana-baptift  churches.  A  collection  of  hymns  is  ufed  in  the  Me- 
thodift  churches.  Thus  you  fee  there  is  a  variety  of  pfalms  and 
hymns  in  ufe  in  the  church  of  Chrift.  And  they  are  all  human 
compofitions.  I  mention  this,  becaufe  the  advocates  for  David's 
pfalms  roundly  affirm  that  human  compofures  ought  not  to  be 
ufed  in  divine  worfhip.  But  are  not  our  fermons  and  prayers 
human  compofitions  ?  And  why  fliould  our  fongs  of  praife  be  dif- 
ferent ?  Is  it  a  more  fokrr.n  act  of  worfnip  to  fing  than  pray  ? 
Sermons,  prayers  and  pfalms  fhculd  be  founded  on  fcripture. 
But  they  are  neverthelefs  human  compofitions. 

Thee  are  fome  perfons  who  fuppoi'e  that  the  pfalms  common- 
ly called  David's,  were  compofed  and  put  into  their  prefent  me- 
tre by  David.  And  this,  however  untrue,  has  been  taught  by 
minillers  of  the  gofpel.  This  fyftem  of  pfalms  was  formerly  in 
vfc  in  our  churches,  and  is  ftill  retained  in  fome  of  tkem.     It  is, 


[  21  ] 

iowever,  a  mere  verfion  of  David,  and  was  compofed  by  Mr. 
Roufe  an  Englifh  baron.     This  verfion  was  not  introduced  into 
the  church  till  the  middle  of  the  feventeenth  century.     So  that  it 
did  not  make  its  appearance  till  fixtccn  hundred  and  fifty  years 
after  Chrift.     And  if  this  is  the  only  vetfion  that  fhould  he  lung, 
how  came  it  to  pafs  that  it  was  not  ufed  by  the  apoftles,  nor  any 
church  for  fo  long  a  fpace  as  fixteen  hundred  and  fifty  years  ? 
Can  you  fuppofe  that  the  apoftles,  and  all  their  fuccelfors,  were 
in  an  error  until  an  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  ?  And  can  you 
fuppofe  that  the   Epifconal   church,  the  Dutch   reformed,  the 
Congregational,  German,  Anabaptift,  and  Prefbylerian  churches, 
are  all  in  an  error  with  refpeft  to   pfalmody  ?  Take  the  world 
through,  and  you  will   find  only  an  exceeding  fmall  number  of 
churches  that  make  ufe  of  Route's  verfion  of  pfalms.  And  is  this 
fmall  number  the  only  orthwdox  and  pure  churches  under  hea- 
ven ?  Are  all  the  reft  corrupt  and  erroneous,  in  which  there  are 
as  learned  and  pious  divines  and  private  chriftians,  as  in  the  pther 
churches  ? 

The  verfion  of  pfalms  by  Roufe  then  is  of  late  date,  and  is  as 
much  a  human  cornpofition,  as  that  oi  Watts.  It  was  altered 
and  amended  by  the  General  Alfetnbly  ot'  the  church  of  Scotland 
before  it  was  introduced  into  the  churches. 

Stewart  of  Pardovan  informs  us  that  the  afiembly,  in  1648, 
pafTed  an  aft  for  examining  the  labors  of  Mr.  Zachary  Boyd  up- 
on other  fcripture  fongs.  In  1706,  the  affembly  pa/redan  act 
in  which  they  recommend  the  fcripture  fongs  of  Patrick  Simpfon, 
minifter  at  Renfrew,  to  the  ufe  of  private  families :  and  in  order 
to  prepare  them  for  the  ftt&lic  ufe  of  the  church,  this  act  was  renew- 
ed in  1707.  And  by  an  aft  of  aifembly  in  1708,  their  comrniT- 
fion  was  inftrufted  and  appointed' to  confider  the  printed  verfion 
of  the  fcripture  fongs  with  the  remarks  of  pjrefbyte  1  ies  thereupon  ; 
and  after  examination  thereof,  they  were  authorifed  and  empow- 
ered to  conclude  and  emit  the  fame,  for  the  public  ufe  of  the  chur\ch. 
The  prefent  verfion  of  the  pfalms  being  ordered  in  the  fame  man- 
lier in  the  year  1649. 

The  aifembly  alfo  publifhed  and  recommended  a  number  of 
poems  from  Watts.whom  they  ftile  the  pious  and  ehgetiuous  Dor- 
tor  Watts.  Thus  you  fee  that  the  General  Aifembly  of  the  church 
of  Scotland  introduced  Roufe's  verfion  of  the  pfalms,  and  re- 
commended various  fongs  of  praifc  to  the  ufe  of  their  churches. 
And  they  were  fo  far  from  thinking  that  the  verfion  of  Roule 
was  given  by  infpiration,  that  they  deemed  it  a  very  incomplete 
fyftem  of  pfalmody,  and  pa/fed  feveral  acts,  to  have  it  enlarged 
and  rendered  more  perfect. 

As  to  the  merits  of  the  vcrfions  that  have  enme  under  my  no- 
tic?,  I  (hall  make  but  a  few  remarks.  Tim  of  Roufe,  which  fouie 


C  ••  3 

ignorantly  call  David's  pfalms,  was  in  general  ufe  in  the  prefby- 
terian  churches  in  America..  Ii  is,  at  prefent  ufed  in  fome  of 
them,  and  in  all  the  feceding  churches.  A»d  I  helitate  not  to 
a.Tu  m,  that  it  is  very  uufui  table  for  the  gofpel  day.  It  will  fujt 
ajewilh  fynagogue,  but  not  a  chriftian  aifembly.  The  metre  is 
extremely  barbarous.  We  are  often  obliged  to  fing  two  fylla- 
bles  to  one  note  which  makes  an  unpardonable  jar  in  themufic. 
Such  as  ever,  never,  remember,  J/jirit.  Another  defect  is  apparent, 
every  line  does  not  contain  the  fenfc  in  hfelf.  We  arc  almoft  al- 
ways obliged  to  fing  two  or  three  lines  before  we  can  learn  the 
fenfe.  This  will  be  the  cafe  fometimes  in  all  poetry.  But  it  more 
frequently  occurs  in  this  vcrfion,  than  in  any  other  with  which  I 
arn  acquainted.  Another  and  principal  defect  is,  it  introduees 
the  ceremonial  rites  which  have  been  abolifhed. 
Thus  in  the  66th  pfalm  we  fing, 

'  Burnt  facrifices  of  fat  rama 

With  incenfe  I  will  bring  ; 

Of  bullocks  and  of  goats  I  will 

Prefent  an  offering.' 
When  we  fing  this  pfalm  we  make  it  our  own,  and  pofitively 
declare  that  we  will  offer  the  fat  of  rams,bullocks,and  goats  in  fa- 
crifice.  This  was  proper  when  thefe  offerings  were  obligatory 
upon  the  jtwifh  church.  But  the  offerings  being  annulled, it  is  im- 
proper to  declare,  in  our  acts  of  worfliip,  that  we  will  make  them. 

*  Praife  him  with  trumpets  found  ;  his  praife 
With  pfakery  advance 

With  timbrel,  harp,  firing'd  infbuments 
And  organs  in  the  dance.'  (i.) 
We  cannot  fing  this  pfalm  unlefs  we  ufe  the  inftruments  which 
it  mentions.  If  therefore  we  fing  thefe  pfalms  widi  confiftency, 
we  muft  introduce  the  trumpet,  harp,  pfakery,  organ  and  the 
dance  into  the  worfliip  of  God.  Thefe  examples  may  fuffice  to 
fliew  that  Roufe  has  revived  the  ceremonial  rites,  in  his  verfion, 
which  are  abolifhed.  And  hence  it  is  not  fuited  1  or  divine  wor- 
fhip  in  gofpel  churches. 

Another  reafon  againfl  the  ufe  of  this  verfion  of  pfalms,  is  be- 
caufe  it  does  Dot  embrace  the  peculiar  doctrines,  and  precious 
piomifes  of  the  gofpel.  We  often  hear  the  advocates  tor  David's 
pfalms,  condemn  fermons  becaufe  they  are  not  fufheiently  replete 
■with  the  doctrine  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  Chrift,  and  the  promifes 
of  the  gofpel.  They  frequently  cenfure  our  minifters  becaufe 
they  do  not  make  fuch  a  free  and  full  offer  of  falvation  to  finners 
as  they  think  ought  to  be  done.  But  why  do  they  not  perceive 
their  own  inconfiitency  ?  Where  will  they  find  the  name  of  Jefus 

(/.)  Pfalm  el. 


C   *3   3 

in  their  pfalms?  Where  will  they  find  us  dirc&cd  to  the  throne  of 
grace  in  the  name  of  Chrift  ?  Where  are  we  directed  to  plead  his 
righreoufnefs,  and  the  precious  promifes  of  the  gofpel  in  Rome's 
verfion  of  the  pfalms  which  they  ufc  ?  And  are  thefe  things  to 
occupy  no  place  in  our  facred  fongs  ?  At  this  be  aftonifhed  O  ye 
heavens  !  Thefe  are  arguments  againft  the  exclusive  ufe  of  this 
verfion,  which  never  have,  and  never  can  be,  refuted.  Nay  it  is 
virtually"  condemed  by  the  pra&ice  of  the  Seceding  church  it- 
felf.  In  this  church  the  minifter  gives  a  long  lecture  upon  the 
pfalm  that  is  to  be  fung,  in  which  he  explains  it  in  the  language 
of  the  gofpel.  He  fnews  how  the  types,  predictions,  and  cere- 
monial rites  are  accomplifhed  in  Jefus  of  Nazareth.  When  his 
hearers  fing,  they  muft  ufe  the  words  of  David  and  Afapb,  but 
their  minds  muft  be  imprefled  with  ideas  and  fentiments  of  the 
gofpel.  Thus  they  tacitly  condemn  the  fyftem  they  ufe.  They 
cannot  fing  the  pfalms  till  they  are  explained  upon  the  plan  of 
the  golpel.And  why  not  ufe  pfalms  which  carry  the  explanation 
in  themfelves  ?  This  explication  is  given,  in  the  verfion  of  Doctor 
Watts  as  evangelically  as  it  is  in  any  of  their  lectures.  It  is  much 
eafierfor  the  worfhippers,when  they  fing,  to  have  the  ferttiments  of 
thegofpel  clothed  in  the  language  cf  the  gofpel.  I  forbear  remarking  0:1 
the  pfalms  which  are  ufed  in  other  churches.  With  thofe  churches 
we  have  no  controverfy.  Had  not  the  verfion  of  Roufe  been 
ufed  in  fome  of  our  churches,  and  had  wo  not  been  fo  long  and 
fo  feverely  condemned  for  introducing  the  verfion  of  Watts,  I 
had  never  entered  on  this  difagreeable  fubject. 

I  fhall  now  anfwer  the  priucipal  objections  againft  the  verfion 
of  Doctor  Watts,  and  then  fliew  how  well  it  is  adapted  to  divine 
worfhip  under  the  gofpel  difpenfetion. 

i.  It  is  objected  .that  Doctor  Watts  has  diminifhed  from  the 
holy  lciiptures  in  his  verfion,  and  therefore  it  fhould  not  be  ufed. 

This  is  a  molt  unreafonabie,  and  unfounded  objection.  Doctor 
Watts  deemed  it  improper  to  verfify,  for  the  ufe  of  the  church, 
a  number  of  David's  pfalms.  And  what  then  ?  Is  this  diminifh- 
ing  from  them  ?  Far  from  it.  He  informs  you  in  his  preface 
why  he  did  not  verfify  them.  Does  he  not  declare  in  the  fame 
preface  that  he  highly  efteems  all  David's  pfalms,  which  every 
chriftian  rnuft  do.  But  fome  of  them  he  believed  the  gofpel' 
church  could  not  adopt  as  her  own  in  divine  worfhip.  And  there- 
fore he  did  not  verfify  them.  His  reafons,  I  confefs  never  fatis- 
ed  me,  but  he  had  a  right  to  judge  for  himfelf  and  act  accord- 
ingly. And  no  man  of  common  fenfe  and  candor,  can  imagine, 
that,  becaufe  he  left  fome  cf  David's  pfalms  unverfified,  he  di- 
minifhed from  fcripture.  li  Doctor  Watts  had  judged  it  proper 
to  verfify  only  twenty  pfalms,   he  had  not  diiuinilhed  fiom.  the 


[    u    1 

Jtoly  oracles.  This  objection  feems  to  be  an  inviduous  one,  ad- 
rireffed  to  the  prejudices  of  men,  not  fo  much  for  the  fake  of 
truth,  as  profelyting.  And  as  it  is  often  heard  among  us,  I 
would  obforve  that  a  peifon  diminifties  from  fcripture  when  he 
condemns  any  part  of  it  as  uniufpired,  and  takes  it  out  of  his  bi- 
ble. Nothing  lhort  of  this  will  amount  to  diminifliing  from  the 
word  of  God.  And  can  the  mod  deep  rooted  bigotry  and  ma- 
levolence charge  this  on  Doctor  Watts  ? 

2.  It  is  objecled  that  the  verfion  of  Watts  is  not  orthodox. 
In  pfalm  5 ill,  fays  the  Doctor, 

*  Should'ft  thou  condemn  my  foul  to  hell 
And  crulh  my  flelh  to  duft, 

Heav'n  would  approve  thy  vengeance  wellj 

And  earth  muft  own  it  juft.' 
This  is  faid  to  be  erroneous  becaufe  God  condemns  none  t© 
hell  after  converfion  to  Jefus.  But  do  not  chriftians  daily  com- 
mit fins  ?  And  does  not  every  fin  deferve  punifhment  ?  Mr.  Ro- 
bert Annan,  in  his  animadvevfions  on  univerfal  falvation,  at  pag« 
fifteenth,  affirms  that  God  would  not  do  an  '  act  of  perfonal  in- 
juilice  to  true  believers,  were  he  to  caft  them  into  utter  darknefs, 
and  punifh  them  foi  their  fins  eternally  in  hell,  his  atonement  and 
their  faith  in  it  notwithstanding.'  And  will  not  this  entirely  re- 
move the  charge  which  Doctor  Clark  alleges  againft  Watts'  in- 
orthodoxy  ?  Do  not  chriftians  daily  juftify  this  plalm  in  their 
prayers?  They  are  fenfible  of  guilt  and  unworthinefs.  They 
confefs  thefe  things  before  God,  and  acknowledge  that  he  would 
be  juft  in  punifhing  them.  Sin  is  a  tranfgreffion  of  the  law,  and 
is  in  every  ciicumftance  a  damnable  evil. 

3.  Another  error  is  charged  on  the  5  ift  pfalm, 

*  A  humble  groan,  a  broken  hear!, 
Is  our  befi  facrifice* 

It  is  here  afked  whether  (Thrift's  facrifice  is  not  the  bed  ?  If 
fo,  Watts  is  erroneous.  Doctor  Watts  lays  down  the  facrifice  of 
Chrift  as  the  only  ground  of  our  falvation.  He  declares,  as 
ltrongly  as  our  language  is  capable,  that  we  muft  be  accepted 
through  the  facrifice  and  mediation  of  Chrifi  ot/'y. 

*  No  blood  of  goats  nor  heifer  flain 
For  fin  could  e'er  atone  : 

The  death  of  Chrifl  (hall  ftill  remain 

Sufficient  and  alone.* 
Here  you  fee  that  our  falvation  is  bottomed  on  the  death  of 
Chrift,  which  is  confidered  as  the  only  and  all-iufficient  atone- 
ment for  our  fins.  And  on  this  foundation,  fays  the  Doctor,  we 
tnuft  offer  up  cur  facrifices.  And  is  it  erroneous  to  aiTert  that  we 
have  facrifices  to  offer,  and  that  one  excels  another  ?  Let  the 
l'ciiptures  fpeak  in  anfvver.    *Trefent  your  bodies  a  living  facri- 


[     *5     J 

fee.'  (/-•)  'By  him  let  us  offer  the  facti/ice  of  praife.'  To  do 
good  and  communicate  forget  not,  for  with  fuch  facrifices  God  is 
well  pleafed.'  (/.) 

Thus  you  fee  that  we  have  facrifices  to  offer  to  God.  And  fays 
Doclor  Watts, 

*  A  humble  groan,  a  broken  heart 
Is  our  Left  Jacrifice.' 
When  we  come  before  God  to  offer  the  facrifice  of  prayer, 
praife,  and  lhankfgiving,  if  we  come  with  hearts  broken  and  con- 
trite, and  are  unable  to  fpeak  a  word,  but  pray  with  groanings 
which  cannot  be  uttered,  as  the  apoftle  fpeaks,  this  is  our  bell  fa- 
crifice, fays  Dodor  Watts.  And  does  not  God  declare  thefam« 
thing  in  fubftance  ?  *  But  to  this  man  will  I  look,  even  to  him 
that  is  poor,  and  of  a  contrite  fpirit,  and  trembleth  at  my  word.'  (m.) 
Hence  the  objection  vanifhes,  and  the  plalm  appears  orthodox, 
and  agreeable  to  fcripture. 

4.  Another  error  is  found  in  the  fourth  pfalm. 
«  When  our  obedient  hands  have  done 
A  thoufand  works  of  righteousnefs* 
It  is  hereaiked  what  works  ot  lighteoufnefs  can  we  perform  J 
I  anfwer,  ten  thoufand.     Praying,   finging,  preaching,  believing, 
hoping,  vifiting  the  fick,  relieving  the  poor,  are  all  works  of  right- 
eoufnefs.     '  He  that  believeth  on  him  thatjuftifieth  the  ungodly, 
his  faith  is  counted  for  righteoufnefs-'  («  )    He  that  vuorfoth  right- 
eousnefs  fhall  never  be  moved.'  (0.)     And  the;  work  ofrighteousnefs 
fhall  be  peace,  {p.)     In  the  face  of  thefe  fcriptures  how  can  any 
man  charge  the  Doclor  with  an  error  when  he  fpeaks  of  our  doing 
a  thoufand  -works  of  righteousnefs  ?  Mr.  Roufe  is  guilty  of  the  fam# 
error  in  his  verfion,  in  the  fifteenth  pfalm. 

'  The  man  that  walketh  uprightly, 
And  tuorketh  righteousnefs.* 
What  is  the  difference  between  working  righteoufnefs,  and  do- 
ing works  of  righteoufne's  ?  And  if  we  can  perform  one  work  of 
righteoufnefs,  we  can  do  a  thoufand. 

The  Doclor  does  not  depend  on  his  works  for  falvation.— 
He  has  learned  Chrift  to  better  purpofe.  Read  "the  whole  verfe, 
to  which  the  objection  is  made. 

When  our  obedient  hands  have  done 
A  thoufand  works  of  righteoufnefs 
We  put  our  truft  in  God  alone, 
And  glory  in  his  pard'ning  grace. 

(k.)  Romans  xii.  1.         (/.)  Hebrews  xiii.  15,  i& 
(w.)   Ifaiah  lxvi.    2.  («.)   Romans  iv.  5. 

(«.)  Pfalms  xy.  2—        (p.)  Ifaiah  xxxii.  17. 
D 


r  26  3 

I  think  the  obje&ion  can  find  no  entrance  into  any  unprejudi- 
ced head,  that  is  capable  of  underftanding  plain  Englifli. 

Every  objection,  that  I  hare  feen  alleged  againft  the  inortho- 
doxy  of  Doctor  Watt's  verfion  of  the  pfalms,  can  be  as  eafily  re- 
futed as  thofe  which  I  have  noticed,  and  therefore  I  difroifs  this 
point. 

h  thofe  who  condemn  the  Doctor  would  fpend  that  time  in 
teaming  him  with  candor,  which  they  fpend  in  raifing  unfounded 
cl'mor  againft  him, they  would  not  find  fo  many  objections  againft 
the  uie  of  his  verfion  of  «he  pfalms.  They  would  find  them  to 
be  orthodox,  to  be  highly  evangelical,  and  well  adapted  to  divine 
woifhip  under  the  go/pel.  The  more  his  pfalms  are  read,  the 
better  they  are  efteemed  by  his  inveterate  opponents.  And  in 
general  they  are  condemned  by  thofe  who  have  never  read  them, 
and  who  are  totally  ignorant  of  their  contents  and  merits. 

A  few  remarks  on  the  propriety  of  ourfnighig  the  verfion  of 
Doctor  Watts,  fhall  clofe  this  general  head.  We  have  no  autho- 
rity to  meddle  with  any  church  out  of  our  own  bounds.  They 
have  a  right  to  adopt  any  verfion  they  judge  expedient.  And  if 
every  denomination  of  chriftians  would  purfue  this  line  of  con- 
duct, there  would  not  be  fo  many  difpvitcs,  and  divifions  among 
the  profefled  difciples  of  Chrift. 

I  have  already  obferved  that  the  fyftem  of  pfalmody  under  the 
gefpel,  fhould  embrace  the  peculiar  doctrines,  promifes,  and  or- 
dinances of  the  gofpel.     The  fyftem  under  the  old  difpenfation 
was  adapted  to  that  difpenfation.     It  embraced  the  ceremonial 
rites,  and  all  the    peculiarities   of  that  ftate  of  things.     So,  our 
fyftem  of  pfalms,  fhould  embrace  the  peculiarities  of  the  new  dif- 
penfation.    And  thefe  things  are  eminently  contained  in  the  ver- 
fion of  Doflor  Watts.     The  doctrine  of  the  adorable  Trinity ; 
the  divinity  and  glory  of  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  are  clearly  aflerted  in  this  verfion. 
«  To  God  the  Father's  throne 
Perpetual  honor   raife ; 
Glory  to  God  the  Son, 
To  God  the  Spirit  praife : 
With  all  our  powers, 
Eternal  King, 
Thy  name  we  fi  ng 
While  faith  adores.' 
The  birth,  fufferings,  death,  refurreftion,  afcention,  and  inter- 
eeffion  of  Chnft,  and  his   fecond  coming  to  judgment,  are  fully 
ftffertedin  rmny  of  thefe  pfalms.     Here  we    may  celebrate,  in 
triumphant  (trains,   our  juftirication  through  the  merits  of  our 
Redeemer — our  election  and  adoption  into  the  family  of  heaven  ; 


[    *    ] 

•ur  fanflification  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  our  perfeve- 
ranee  in  a  courfe  of  obedience  to  the  divine  will,  and  eternal  life 
through  the  mediation  of  Jefus  Chrift,  are  abundantly  fet  forth 
in  thefe  evangelical  pfalms.  And  thefe  things  are  the  lift  and 
fpirit  of  ourfacred  fongs.  "Wert  they  deftitute  of  thefe  precious 
doctrines  of  grace  fo  peculiar  to  the  gofpel,  our  ringing  would  be 
no  better  '  than  founding  brafs,  or  a  tinkling  cymbal.'  Hence  I 
think  it  abundantly  evident,  that  the  verfion  of  Watts  is  infinitely 
better  fuited  to  divine  worfhip  in  the  chriftian  church  than 
that  of  Roufe.  And  if  at  any  future  period,  a  better  fyftero  of 
pfalms  than  that  of  Watts,  fhould  make  its  appearance,  the  church 
•would  be  under  obligations  to  introduce  it  into  divine  worfhip. 
And  this  is  no  innovation  nor  herefy,  but  agreeable  to  fcripture,' 
to  the  practice  of  the  church  in  all  ages,  to  re-ifon  and  common 
fenfe.  Why  then  ihould  there  be  fuch  loud  and  conftant  clamor 
againft  the  introduction  of  Watts'  verfion  into  our  churches  ?  Why- 
are  we  reprefented  as  innovators,  as  impure,  erroneous  in  doc- 
trine, and  las  in  difcipline?  The  impartial  world  will  judge,  and 
Cod  will  judge  of  fuch  unreasonable  clamor  and  cenfure. 

III.  And  laftly,  I  (hall  make  fome  general  obfeivations  on 
fudging,  or  mufic. 

A  few  remarks  on  this  head  (hall  relieve  your  patience. 

The  principles  of  mufic  and  poetry  are  as  old  as  creations 
Kence  fays,  the  celebrated  Dr.  Blair  of  Edinburgh,  *  man  is  both 
a  poet  and  mufician  by  nature.'*  They  have  been  cultivated  in 
all  ages,  and  among  all  nations.  Poetry  and  mufic  were  early 
introduced  into  the  church  of  God.  They  have  continued  to  our 
day,  and,  no  doubt,  will  exift  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  through 
an  eternal  duration.  Hence  mufic  fhould  be  cultivated  by  eve- 
ry chriftian. 

Some  churches,  to  afUft  vocal,  have  introduced  inftrumental, 
mufic.  Whether  organs  may  be  lawfully  ufed  in  a  church,  I 
think,  does  not  admit  of  difpute.  Any  church,  that  is  able  to 
purchafe  an  organ,  and  employ  an  organift,  has  an  indifputed 
right  to  do  fo.  But  upon  the  whole,  I  would,  for  feveral  reafons 
ur.neceiTary  to  be  detailed,  prefer  vocal  mufic.  But  it  fhouli  be 
Improved,  fo  that  the  church  may  fing  gracefully  and  regularly, 
without  producing  jar  and  confufion.  Some  churches  are  fo  cul- 
pably ignorant  of  mufic,  that  almoft  every  one  has  a  tune  by 
himfelf.  One  will  fing  upon  a  high,  another  upon  a  low  pitch. 
Some  will  be  too  faff,  others  too  flow,  fo  that  jars  and  confufions 
pervade  the  whole  afTembly.  No  one  fhould  fing  audibly ,  unlefs 
he  can  fing  in  unifon  with  the  clerk. 

*  Lecture  on  Rhetoric,  &c.  Vol.  2,  Pa.  239. 


[       28       J 

Other  churches  confine  themfelves  forever  to  two  or  three  tunes. 
They  fing  with  one  voice  indeed  without  jar,  but  their  tunes  are 
as  deflitute  of  mufic  as  a  founding  brafs,  or  an  inftrument  with 
half  the  firings  broken. 

Nothing  fo  much  elevates  the  devout  foul  to  God,  as  mufic 
Well  performed,  and  hence  it  merits  afliduous  cultivation.  '  We 
are  very  fenfible,'  fays  doctor  Samuel  Blair,  'of  the  communica- 
tion of  external  found  through  the  organs  of  hearing.  And  not 
only  of  its  different  tones,  as  the  high  and  low,  the  clear,  the  foft, 
the  fhrill,  and  the  harfh  :  but  likewife  of  certain  more  inward  ef- 
fects, which  we  ufually  defignate  by  the'epithets,  fweet,  or  footh- 
ing,  melting,  or  elevating,  jarring,  or  difgufting.  Of  thefe  effefls 
wc  are  ftill  more  fenfible,  where  the  found  proceedeth  from  Am- 
ple melody  to  harmony. — We  are  not  only  fo  constituted  as  to 
receive  thefe  impreffions  of  harmony;  but  it  hath  alfo  pleafed 
our  Maker  to  cftablifh  an  intimate  connection  between  founds, 
thus  impreffed,  and  the  fentiments  of  the  heart.  Upon  an  accu- 
rate examination  of  our  feelings  we  may  difcern  an  admirable 
funilarity  between  thofe  effects  of  mere  found,  and  thofe  of  which 
we  are  fenfible  on  occafion  of  emotions  of  heart,  originating  in 
the  conception  01  contemplation  of  affecting  objects.  The  fenfa- 
tions  produced  by  the  tender,  plaintive,  and  melting  drains,  feem 
as  mere  feelings,  to  be  of  the  fame  kind  with  thofe  which  we 
perceive  in  the  affections  of  fympathy,  forrow,  and  what  we  call 
pleafing  melancholy.  Thofe  produced  by  the  more  lively  and 
elevating  airs,  appear  to  be  of  a  like  fpecies  with  thofe  effected 
by  the  fentiments  of  joy,  hope,  or  other  exhilarating  paffions. 
And  thofe  which  proceed  from  the  folemn  and  grave,  indicate  a 
nature  fimilar  to  the  impreffions  of  veneration  and  awe.  Now, 
in  this  fimilarity  it  is,  that  the  foundation  is  laid  in  our  nature  for 
the  moral  operation  of  external  harmony.'  This  is  the  language 
of  nature  and  common  fenfe.  It  is  the  language  of  thofe  native 
and  neceiTary  feelings  and  perceptions  which  arife  from  the  veiy 
confiituticn  of  our  frame.  Hence  it  is  natural  for  us  to  celebrate 
the  perfections  of  God  and  redeeming  love  in  fongs  of  praife. — 

With  refpect  to  tunes  I  would  obfeive  that  they  fhould  be 
adapted  to  the  fubject.  When  the  heart  is  furcharged  with  for- 
row and  grief,  it  will  vent  itfclf  in  language  which  requires  a 
tune  of  pl.tintive  or  mournful  airs.  When  the  fubject  is  joy  and 
hope,  the  tune  fhould  be  lively  and  quick.  When  the  fubject  is 
grand  and  fublime.  the  tune  fhould  be  flow  and  grave.  Hence 
the  neceffity  of  varieus  tunes.  It  would  be  abiiird  to  fing  a 
mournful  tune,  which  would  make  us  feel  melancholy,  when  we 
fing  of  the  joys  and  blefTeditefs  of  the  upper  world.  So  on  the 
•iher  hand,  it  would  be  prepoilerous  to  fing  a  lively  tune,  vvheH 


I    *9    ] 

the  mifery  of  the  damned  is  the  fubject.  If  therefore  you  would 
anfwer  the  defign  of  mufic,  it  muft  be  cultivated,  and  your  tunes 
mull  be  adapted  to  the  fubjects.  It  is  a  great  reflection  on  chris- 
tians that  this  branch  of  divine  worihip  is  fo  frequently  perform- 
ed, in  fuch  an  ungraceful,  and  I  may  add,  irreligious  manner. 
Many  of  them  are  diifatisfied  if  they  do  not  hear  good  fermons 
and  good  prayers.  But  alas  when  they  addrefs  the  Great  God 
in  fongs  of  praife,  they  appear  wholly  indifferent  how  this  part; 
of  divine  worfhip  is  performed.  If  they  can  make  a  noife  it  is 
fufficient,  though  it  is  as  far  from  mufic,  as  the  heavens  are  dis- 
tant from  the  earth.  I  would  therefore  ferioufly  urge  you  to  cul- 
tivate the  art  of  mufic,  fo  as  to  be  able  to  praife  God  in  a  be- 
coming manner. 

In  regard  to  reading  the  pfalm  line  by  line  prior  to  the  ring- 
ing of  it,  I  would  obferve  ;  that  this  practice  arofe  in  time  of  ig- 
norance. It  was  by  no  means  approved  of  by  the  Weftminfter 
AiTembly.  They  adapted  it  as  a  convenience  for  fome  of  their 
churches  which  contained  many  perfons  who  could  not  read. 
The  practice  of  reading  the  line  is  a  difgrace  to  any  American 
church.  It  implies  that  the  people  are  too  ignorant  to  read  for 
themfelves.  And  will  they,  in  the  prefent  age  of  knowledge, 
when  education  is  fo  eafily  obtained,  lie  under  the  imputation. 
Let  the  practice  be  univerfally  difmiiTed  from  the  American 
churches,  and  let  them  all  be  well  furnifhed  with  books.  Let  the 
ignorant  learn  to  read. 

I  haften  to  clofe  with  a  few  inferences  from  what  precedes. 

I.  The  power  of  prejudice  is  great. 

*  Can  any  good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth,'  was  a  queftion 
cf  prejudice.  The  language  and  conduct  of  many  in  the  prefent 
day,  demand,  can  there  be  any  good  thing  either  in  doctrine,  or 
worfhip,  or  discipline,  except  among  ourfelves  ?  I  do  not  know 
any  fubject,  concerning  which  there  appears  ftronger  prejudice 
and  bigotry,  than  that  of  gofpel  pfalmody.  The  apoftles  fang 
evangelical  fongs.  Such  were  the  fongs  of  fucceeding  chriftianx 
in  many  churches,  till  the  middle  of  the  fourth,  and  in  fome  till 
the  eighth  centuiy. 

How  David's  pfalms  were  introduced  I  have  already  obfeived. 
And  when  they  come  from  the  pen  of  a  Watts,  in  the  language 
of  the  new  teitameat,  they  are  well  adapted  to  divine  worfhip  in 
gofpel  churches. 

But  in  this  drefs  they  are  ftrenuonfly  oppofed.  In  jewifh  gar- 
ment? they  are  advocated.  c\%  the  foundation  I  can  perceive 
nothing  but  prejudice 

David's  pfalms  ar  sot  fang  by  hofe  who  advocate  them,  nei- 
ther in  their  native  loxm,  nor  in  their  proper  tranfiation.  Roufe'i 


,) 


i  &  i 

Terfion  of  them  Is  ufed,  which  has,  infiduoufly  impofed  Upon  it, 
the  title  of  David's  pfalms.  And  when  thefe  friends  to  David 
fpeak  again  ft  Doctor  Watts,  they  fet  David's  pfalms  in  oppofi- 
tion  to  the  Doctor's  verfion  of  them.  This  is  fophiftry,  if  not 
prevarication.  By  this  mean  many  ignorant  people  are  induced 
to  believe,  that  the  verfion  of  Roufe,  in  its  pr:fent  form,  was  the 
production  of  David  under  divine  infpiration. 

To  ftate  the  cafe  fairly,  they  fhould  draw  a  contraff' between 
the  verfion  of  Doctor  Watts,  and  that  of  Mr.  Roufe,  and  fhew 
which  is  the  beft  adapted  to  the  gofpel  difpenfation.  This  1  have 
attempted,  in  the  prefent  difconrfe. 

2.  We  may  learn  the  neceflity  of  a  careful  examination  of  any 
fubject  that  comes  into  view. 

The  fubject  of  pfalmody  has  been  much  difguifed-  And  it  has, 
in  all  its  fictitious  drefs,  been  xeceived  by  many  without  any  pro- 
per reflection.  I  dclirc  no  perfon  to  be  led,  by  the  inchanted 
chord  of  implicit  faith,  to  embrace  what  I  have  advanced  upon 
this  fubject.  If  it  will  not  bear  a  candid  inveftigation,  and  appear 
amply  fupporteu,  let  it  be  rejected.  Make  the  trial,  and  you  will 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Examine  the  fubject  tho- 
roughly with  an  unprejudiced  mind,  and  you  will  difcover  what 
fyftem  of  pfalmody  is  the  beft  calculated  for  the  woiihip  of  God 
in  chriitian  churches.  I  have  fully  given  my  opinion.  If  other 
chriftians  differ,  in  judgment  fiom  me,  I  have  no  objection.  Let 
every  one  act  agreeably  to  fcripture,  and  the  dictates  of  an  en- 
lightened, unprejudiced,  and  good  conference.  Tn  this  difcourfe 
I  aim  chiefly  at  a  vindication  of  the  fyftem  of  pfalmody  which 
dtlr church  has  adopted,  from  the  afperfions  which  are  unjuftly 
cafe  upon  it.'  Had  not  fome  of  our  brethren,  in  the  Seceding 
church,  been  fo  loud  in  their  clamors  againft  Doctor  Watts'  ver- 
fion of  pfalms,  and  fo  high  in  commendation  ct  that  of  Mr.  Roufe, 
i  fhould  not  have  entered  on  the  difcuffion  of  this  fubject.  And 
I  have  not  examined  the  fubject,  fo  much  with  a  view  to  refute 
what  has  been  alledged  againft  Watts;  as  to  illuftrate  the  doc- 
tiine  of  pfalmody  generally,  and  to  confirm  our  own  people  in  the 
ufe  of  the  fyftem  which  they  have  chofen.  And  I  fhould  not 
have  faid  a  word  againft  the  verfion  of  Roufe,  had  it  not  been 
generally  ufed  in  our  churches  in  times  paft,  and  ftill  retained  in 
ufe  by  fotne  of  them.  I  now  commit  this  difcourfe  to  the  difpofal 
of  the  gieat  head  of  the  church.  To  promote  his  glory  and  fpi- 
ritual  kingdom  it  was  compofed.  For  thefe  ends  it  is  with  humi- 
lity fubmiittd  co  public  examination. 


t  V  J 

rerfion  of  them  is  ufed,  which  has,  infiduoufly  impofed  upon  it, 
the  title  of  David's  pfalms.  And  when  thefe  friends  to  David 
fpeak  againft.  Doctor  Watts,  they  fet  David's  pfalms  in  oppofi- 
tion  to  the  Doctor's  verfion  of  them.  This  is  fophiftry,  if  not 
prevarication.  By  this  mean  many  ignorant  people  are  induced 
to  believe,  that  the  verfion  of  Roufe,  in  its  pr^fent  form,  was  the 
production  of  David  under  divine  infpiration. 

To  (late  the  cafe  fairly,  they  fhould  draw  a  contrail  between 
the  verfion  of  Doctor  Watts,  and  that  of  Mr.  Roufe,  and  fhew 
which  is  the  beft  adapted  to  the  gofpel  difpenfation.  This  1  have 
attempted,  in  the  prefent  difcourfe. 

2.  We  may  learn  the  neceflity  of  a  careful  examination  of  any 
jubject  that  comes  into  view. 

The  fubjeet  of  pfalmody  has  been  much  difguifed-  And  it  has, 
in  all  its  fictitious  drefs,  been  received  by  many  without  any  pro- 
per reflection.  I  defire  no  perfon  to  be  led,  by  the  inchanted 
chord  of  implicit  faith,  to  embrace  what  I  have  advanced  upon 
this  fubjeet.  If  it  will  not  bear  a  candid  inveftigation,  and  appear 
amply  fupporteu,  let  it  be  rejected.  Make  the  trial,  and  you  will 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Examine  the  fubjeet  tho- 
roughly with  an  unprejudiced  mind,  and  you  will  difcover  what 
fyftem  of  pfalmody  is  the  beft  calculated  for  the  woifhip  of  God 
in  chrittian  churches.  I  have  fully  given  my  opinion.  If  other 
chriilians  differ,  in  judgment  fiom  me,  I  have  no  objection.  Let 
every  one  act  agreeably  to  fcripture,  and  the  dictates  of  an  en- 
lightened, unprejudiced,  and  good  conference.  Tn  this  difcourfe 
I  aim  chiefly  at  a  vindication  of  the  fyftem  of  pfalmody  which 
our  church  has  adopted,  from  the  afperfions  which  are  unjuftly 
cafe  upon  it.'  Had  not  fome  of  our  brethren,  in  the  Seceding 
church,  been  fo  loud  in  their  clamors  againft  Doctor  Watts'  ver- 
fion of  pfalms,  and  fo  high  in'  commendation  of  that  of  Mr.  Roufe, 
1  fhould  not  have  entered  on  the  difcuffion  of  this  fubjeet.  And 
I  have  not  examined  the  fubjeet,  fo  much  with  a  view  to  refute 
what  has  been  alledged  againft  Watts;  as  to  illuftrate  the  doc- 
tiine  of  pfalmody  generally,  and  to  confirm  our  own  people  in  the 
ufe  of  the  fyftem  which  they  have  chofen.  And  I  fhould  not 
have  faid  a  word  againft  the  verfion  of  Roufe,  had  it  not  been 
generally  ufed  in  our  churches  in  times  paft,  and  ftill  retained  in 
ufe  by  ioioc  of  rhem.  I  now  commit  this  difcourfe  to  the  difpofal 
of  the  gieat  head  of  the  church.  To  promote  his  glory  and  fpi- 
ritual  kingdom  it  was  compofed.  For  thefe  ends  it  is  with  humi- 
lity fubmiited  co  public  examination. 


